| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Words of Truth" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2004 02:17:18 PM |
| Object: |
Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among
individuals are "selected" by nature because they make the individual
more "fit" to survive. Those more "fit" characteristics are passed on
to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the
species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution
will have produced an entirely new species.
So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and
appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural
selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living
cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire
diversity of all living things could be produced.
That was the grand promise of Darwin's theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong
about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from
closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders
contend that "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis,
and that a change is on the way." Darwin's theory is in crisis, they
argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its
promise so grand--how new species arise.
I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders
because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters
from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National
Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and
confident "NO" into a rather sheepish "well...sort of."
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
One suspects--reading between the lines--that the real reason that
National Geographic suddenly "doth protest too much" against doubters
of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so
much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with
evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw
attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more
informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism.
So, we return to the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic
says "NO." But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers
should read the following books.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box
Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots
John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public
Education
William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism
Unconvincing
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism
Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's
Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism
http://www.tothesource.org/11_10_2004/11_10_2004.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
02 Dec 2004 08:29:49 PM |
|
|
"Words of Truth" <wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.0412021217.6c998f3b@posting.google.com...
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
What would be truly ironic, if you were evolving into a new and stupider
species even as you deny the possiblity.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
02 Dec 2004 10:10:23 PM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xcQrd.10760$NU3.6762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Words of Truth" <wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.0412021217.6c998f3b@posting.google.com...
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
What would be truly ironic, if you were evolving into a new and stupider
species even as you deny the possiblity.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
Uh, ever since the creation of medicine and the first physician,
tens-of-thousands of years ago... thats exactly whats been happening. Think
about it.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
11 Dec 2004 01:39:11 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:noSdnZOXF9OsejLcRVn-1g@gbronline.com...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xcQrd.10760$NU3.6762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Words of Truth" <wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.0412021217.6c998f3b@posting.google.com...
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
What would be truly ironic, if you were evolving into a new and stupider
species even as you deny the possiblity.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
Uh, ever since the creation of medicine and the first physician,
tens-of-thousands of years ago... thats exactly whats been happening.
Think
about it.
Not quite as you imply. Natural selection within the species is probably for
larger brains. However suppose that Down's Sydrome individuals for instance,
could somehow have children due to longer life spans, and suppose that the
resulting offspring were not victims of Down's Syndrome.Then suppose the
smaller-brained progeny became slaves for the purpose of law-enforcement and
were selected for superior physical capabilites, and then they gradually
took over and were able to eat the Homo Sapiens for dinner. Then, Homo
Sapiens would be replaced by idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
12 Dec 2004 04:26:53 PM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:z1Iud.8344$0r.2301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:noSdnZOXF9OsejLcRVn-1g@gbronline.com...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xcQrd.10760$NU3.6762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Words of Truth" <wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.0412021217.6c998f3b@posting.google.com...
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
What would be truly ironic, if you were evolving into a new and
stupider
species even as you deny the possiblity.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
Uh, ever since the creation of medicine and the first physician,
tens-of-thousands of years ago... thats exactly whats been happening.
Think
about it.
Not quite as you imply. Natural selection within the species is probably
for
larger brains. However suppose that Down's Sydrome individuals for
instance,
could somehow have children due to longer life spans, and suppose that the
resulting offspring were not victims of Down's Syndrome.Then suppose the
smaller-brained progeny became slaves for the purpose of law-enforcement
and
were selected for superior physical capabilites, and then they gradually
took over and were able to eat the Homo Sapiens for dinner. Then, Homo
Sapiens would be replaced by idiots.
And this disputes the fact that mankinds intelectual capacities are
devolving... how?
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
02 Dec 2004 06:28:21 PM |
|
|
"Words of Truth" <wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.0412021217.6c998f3b@posting.google.com...
Has Darwin Become Dogma ?
November 11, 2004
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an
undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century.
Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue
of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Isn't that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
Yes. It is a good PR trick.
So...what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find
the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered
breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage
of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the
next page and we find our answer, a resounding "NO" printed in a font
a third of the page high.
But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the
venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the
apparently foolish question "Was Darwin wrong?"
To sell copies of the said magazine?
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about.
The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established
science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are
told, are "fundamentalist Christians, "ultraorthodox Jews" and
"Islamic creationists," all of whom view evolution as a threat to
their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the
ones ruffling National Geographic's feathers.
They are.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, "Other people too, not
just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution.
According to a Gallup poll...no less than 45 percent of responding
U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" "Why
are there so many antievolutionists?" they ask impatiently.
They are uneducated brainwashed religious fuckwits.
Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the
article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public
relations presentation of evolution.
Because everybody knows who they are anyway.
The real answer is this. To the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" the
proper answer is not a clamorous "NO" but a well-informed "Yes and
No." While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious
problems, serious scientific problems.
Not really.
Listen to these words: "despite the power of molecular genetics to
reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects
of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species
[emphasis added]....So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a
consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary
differences appears to be without significant support."
Gradualism may have its problems. We have know this for some time now.
Are these the words of a "fundamentalist Christian," "ultraorthodox
Jew," or an "Islamic creationist"? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian
Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists
who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully
insufficient to perform the amazing feat--promised in the title of
Darwin's great work--of producing new species.
But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among
individuals are "selected" by nature because they make the individual
more "fit" to survive. Those more "fit" characteristics are passed on
to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the
species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution
will have produced an entirely new species.
So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and
appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural
selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living
cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire
diversity of all living things could be produced.
That was the grand promise of Darwin's theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong
about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from
closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders
contend that "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis,
and that a change is on the way." Darwin's theory is in crisis, they
argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its
promise so grand--how new species arise.
I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders
because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters
from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National
Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and
confident "NO" into a rather sheepish "well...sort of."
Probably nobody gives a ***** about their opinion.
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
Of course they dont mention them. They are religious fuckwits masquerading
as "scientists".
One suspects--reading between the lines--that the real reason that
National Geographic suddenly "doth protest too much" against doubters
of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so
much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with
evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw
attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more
informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism.
ID is religion.
So, we return to the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic
says "NO." But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers
should read the following books.
The following books are part of the disinformation campaign led by religious
fuckwits.
We can safely ignore them. They belong in the bin.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box
Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots
John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public
Education
William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism
Unconvincing
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism
Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's
Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
02 Dec 2004 09:58:04 PM |
|
|
(Words of Truth) writes:
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet that Intelligent Design
hasn't yet had a single laboratory or theoretical success. There is no
"classical example" of Intelligent Design, not a single example in
biology for which Intelligent Design has proven to be more parsimonious,
more robust, and more reliable, than good old evolutionary theory.
Maybe they left it out because it's hooey on the order of
Terracentrism.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
04 Dec 2004 11:22:51 PM |
|
|
On 02 Dec 2004 19:58:04 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com (Words of Truth) writes:
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet that Intelligent Design
hasn't yet had a single laboratory or theoretical success. There is no
"classical example" of Intelligent Design, not a single example in
biology for which Intelligent Design has proven to be more parsimonious,
more robust, and more reliable, than good old evolutionary theory.
Maybe they left it out because it's hooey on the order of
Terracentrism.
Elf
AND there ISN'T a " growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of
scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious
doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory."
Its total *****!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
05 Dec 2004 07:50:39 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote in message ...
On 02 Dec 2004 19:58:04 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com (Words of Truth) writes:
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet that Intelligent Design
hasn't yet had a single laboratory or theoretical success. There is no
"classical example" of Intelligent Design, not a single example in
biology for which Intelligent Design has proven to be more parsimonious,
more robust, and more reliable, than good old evolutionary theory.
Maybe they left it out because it's hooey on the order of
Terracentrism.
Elf
AND there ISN'T a " growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of
scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious
doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory."
Its total *****!.
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much
order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and
mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp + c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;
also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause
one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into
amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change
into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the
different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as
it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish
to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in
the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends
in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true,
the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate
forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and
classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of
these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: ?
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must]
truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of
evolution].
W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason for
abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection
of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young
science.
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November
1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like
humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed
as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of
such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is
incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of
upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest
with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in
Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional
forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions
in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
05 Dec 2004 08:37:03 PM |
|
|
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:41b3baef_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
Mani Deli wrote in message ...
On 02 Dec 2004 19:58:04 -0800, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
wordsoftruth417@hotmail.com (Words of Truth) writes:
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design
movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who
have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet that Intelligent Design
hasn't yet had a single laboratory or theoretical success. There is no
"classical example" of Intelligent Design, not a single example in
biology for which Intelligent Design has proven to be more parsimonious,
more robust, and more reliable, than good old evolutionary theory.
Maybe they left it out because it's hooey on the order of
Terracentrism.
Elf
AND there ISN'T a " growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of
scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious
doubts about many other aspects of Darwin's theory."
Its total *****!.
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much
order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that
these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small.
Your education and understanding of science is limited. Cells wouldnt just
"pop" into existence with those properties. As you attest and then attempt
to argue against. Youre arguing against a fallacy.
Although I do think the universe came into being with human life as a
certain inevitability.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Atkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
09 Dec 2004 11:25:10 PM |
|
|
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much
order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
You are falsely assuming as has already been pointed out, that scientists
believe things occur completely randomly. What is generally understood is
that things occur randomly within a certain potential field (balls normally
roll down hill, like magnetic poles normally repel each other etc etc).
These aren't pure randomness, but they are random within a framework of
rules.
I've actually designed and run computer similuations that show an evolution
towards order given certain reasonable potential fields (mostly based on
Freeman Dyson's work presented in "Origins of Life"), that show transitions
from an initialized purely random state, towards an ordered state. I'm not
going to go in to the details of the model here (Dyson spent a good number
of pages justifying his assumptions), but suffice to say my work backed up
Dyson's.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Actually it is very likely he can produce a library full of books, just not
intelligible books. Now assume we give our hypothetical monkey certain rules
of grammer that most of the time he should follow. There is then a much
higher chance that he'll spontaneously produce the works of Shakespeare
within the lifetime of the universe.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
I would theorize that most of these people are rather ill informed, or
approached the problem with preconceptions, and used their field to
'justify' their point of view.
It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible.
Note he isn't a biologist. I'm not either, so I won't comment, someone else
already has though....
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics.
Yes they are. The entropy of a closed system will only increase through any
natural process ( /\Suniverse > 0)
Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes.
Ever heard of a freezer? I'd say that tends towards order. Heat is evacuated
from the system, rather than being allowed to flow freely from one place to
another. Why does this work? The freezer isn't a closed system. The entropy
of the universe (lets call the universe your house) will increase overall,
even though the entropy of the freezer is decreasing.
Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder.
Again, in a closed system.
The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Sure, the universe as a whole can not decrease entropy, but the earth can.
Inside the cell certainly can (I know enough biology to assert that much).
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes.
Nope, we don't. I think I just told you why not...
Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp +
c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state.
Think you meant to say entropy there.
P is the probability of
the occurence of that state.
You're burying some important data in that P there. P = (the number of
equivalent states)/(the number possible states). So how many states will
result in the existence of life of some form or description, I dunno, do
you?.
K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward
more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts.
And what does this have to do with your quoted definition for entropy (which
in fact is still based in thermodynamics). You haven't related any of your
variables in your two situations (i.e. to get P). One could make the
arguement that you being exactly where you are, at exactly this time is next
to nothing. Now if you expand that to be, the probability that you be
somewhere in front of your computer while reading this, then the probability
is pretty high.
In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words,
the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do
not
lead to ordered complexity.
This would be the reason not to base your arguements on half understood
theories. Chances our the half that you didn't understand refutes what
you're trying to support.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of
some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Actually these still involve the increase in entropy for the universe, only
a local increase in order.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a
tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
Maybe this would be a good time to explain what entropy actually is, as
generally most people quote it, but don't really understand it. Now what
makes the house intrinsically more ordered than the scattered building
materials? The answer is absolutely nothing, only that out intelligence
recognizes one form to be a house, a very specific state, and one to be
simply a random distribution of materials. When we think of the random
state, we encompass, any number of possible similar states, hence there is
more than one equivalent state of the system hence less entropy. If we
decided that be wanted one specific organization of the debris, it would be
just as unlikely to happen as the house state (well assume a gravity free
environment, and a random starting position).
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Well I'll respond to this appeal to authority, as a physicist said it. It
seems Ilya is refering to a specific state of the system, and not one that
generally describes life. Also this particular reference predates Dyson's
work, if you like I can send you the C code that shows this to be happening
at normal temperatures in a reasonable length of time (still got it around
somewhere).
Dale
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
10 Dec 2004 07:34:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:25:10 GMT, "Dale Atkin" <labrador1@ibycus.com>
wrote:
Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes.
Ever heard of a freezer? I'd say that tends towards order. Heat is evacuated
from the system, rather than being allowed to flow freely from one place to
another. Why does this work? The freezer isn't a closed system.
Oh hush Dale! Shhh! Stone doesn't want folks to know about that!
I've been trying to get him to own up to that fact in a whole chain of
messages but the Creationist never mentions the first four words of
the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Those words torpedo his whole
disingenous argument! And stone has a degree in physics he assures me,
so it isn't that he's ignorant of those four key words "In a closed
system...". No, he knows, but he won't confess his lie.
The earth's biosphere isn't a closed system and his whole purile 2nd
law argument is shot down, but shhh... he doesn't want people to know!
## The Creationist believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
05 Dec 2004 08:07:34 PM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2004 01:50:39 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance.
Name some.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
06 Dec 2004 06:27:32 AM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2004 01:50:39 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much
order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator.
Then the same argument can be applied to that creator. Such an
intelligence cannot have come into being by chance! IT must have had a
still greater intelligence to cleverly create it.
What's that? Your creating intelligence is etarnal and has always
existed? Well that's a possibility, but it's a possibility for the
universe too. So what need is there to postulate this creator? Just
because you want to worship something?
There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
Inspecting the design, I'd say it's evidence of a designer that isn't
too damn smart.
The probability against that happening by chance
But it wasn't by chance, it was by chemistry.
is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at random.
But enzymes and DNA don't work at random.
The probability against his being able to type a small library full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced
to believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
Lack of logic. If they knew more biochemistry they wouldn't be using
the math of permutations and probability, which does not apply to this
case.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts.
Wrong. Go do your homework.
This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small.
But they don't happen by chance, they happen by chemistry. Lets make
an example.
Suppose I place half a million oxygen atoms and a million hydrogen
atoms into a container, mix them well and then heat them up. How will
they combine?
According to the Creationist's math I could get all sorts of
permutations. Two oxygen atoms joined (OO) or two hydrogen atoms
joined, (HH) or an oxygen and a hydrogen (HO) or (OH). Or I could get
triplets, an oxygen and two hydrogen (HOH) or (OHH) or (HHO) or maybe
two oxygen and a hydrogen (OHO) or (OOH) or (HOO). And then he would
go babbling on about all the possible combinations of four atoms that
could form, and then the combinations of five.
Oh he'd have a fine old time generating some huge number that would
represent the odds against all the atoms in that container joining to
form the same kind of molecule. Creationists just love to indulge in
that kind of mathmatical masturbation, playing with numbers to make
themselves feel good about God.
But reality is that you would end up with just one combination, a
triplet of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen-- HOH. Why? Because there
is no chance involved. None. Just the laws of physics, because that's
what governs how atoms and molecules go together, and they only go
together certain ways. Those ways are various, but not infinitely so,
and all those permutations the Creationist tries to sell you is just a
lot of *****.
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power.
No it ain't! Spare us the mathmatical fabrications!
The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and
mathematician.]
Who knew ***** about microbiology and was out to prove panspermia, not
God.
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system.
What kind of system stone? I called you on this crapola once!
What kind of disorder?
Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder.
Not the kind of disorder you hope we'll assume stone.
The sort of order created by photosynthesis is NOT the kind of order
governed by the 2nd law. Throughout the universe the kind of disorder
the Creationist hopes we will assume is meant when that word is used
---disorder in the arrangement of atoms and molecules--- is not taking
place. "Things" are not breaking down, that sort of order is in fact
constantly on the increase.
All over the universe stars, including our sun, are busy making more
complex elements out of simpler ones. They make helium out of
hydrogen, then carbon out of the helium, followed by oxygen, neon,
sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon. Later reactions transform these
elements into calcium, iron, nickel, chromium and copper, each element
more complex than the last, having more protons and neutrons and more
and more layered shells of electrons.
Atoms in turn eagerly combine to form complex molecules. Oxygen and
hydrogen combine to form water, chlorine and sodium to form salt.
Hydrocarbons form enormously complex molecules. Complexity increasing
all the time, and the 2nd law doesn't mind because this kind of
complexity isn't the kind of 'order' it governs. Breakdown of such
constructs isn't the sort of disorder it demands.
Molecules of water in chaotic, disorganized vapour form condense on
your window to form intricate frost patterns, and in the air to form
snowflakes of amazing complexity, and the 2nd law does not protest
either. Order out of chaos, spontaneously, everywhere.
In industry chemicals combine to form molecular chains of almost
endless length and complexity, and in the case of many plastics the
environmentalists complain because these plastics have no tendency to
break down and fall into disorder at all.
The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy,
No it doesn't! Where does the 2nd law apply stone? Do you know?
I've excised the remainder of this Creationist ***** because it's
all of a kind. Bad science aimed at the scientifically illiterate. The
Christian isn't supposed to lie, according to their commandments. Yet
the Creationist lies knowingly and egregiously, apparently feeling
that a few fibs will be forgiven if it saves a soul.
Don't buy it folks! There may be a God, but he's not supporting this
crowd!
## The Creationist believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
06 Dec 2004 09:21:24 AM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:iji8r01jhjp2rqka3hgk1pc7c5g7351cf7@4ax.com...
On 6 Dec 2004 01:50:39 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the laws of
probability that will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered
complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much
order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator.
Then the same argument can be applied to that creator. Such an
intelligence cannot have come into being by chance! IT must have had a
still greater intelligence to cleverly create it.
What's that? Your creating intelligence is etarnal and has always
existed? Well that's a possibility, but it's a possibility for the
universe too. So what need is there to postulate this creator? Just
because you want to worship something?
There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
Inspecting the design, I'd say it's evidence of a designer that isn't
too damn smart.
The probability against that happening by chance
But it wasn't by chance, it was by chemistry.
is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at random.
But enzymes and DNA don't work at random.
The probability against his being able to type a small library full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
Lack of logic. If they knew more biochemistry they wouldn't be using
the math of permutations and probability, which does not apply to this
case.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts.
Wrong. Go do your homework.
This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that
these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small.
But they don't happen by chance, they happen by chemistry. Lets make
an example.
Suppose I place half a million oxygen atoms and a million hydrogen
atoms into a container, mix them well and then heat them up. How will
they combine?
According to the Creationist's math I could get all sorts of
permutations. Two oxygen atoms joined (OO) or two hydrogen atoms
joined, (HH) or an oxygen and a hydrogen (HO) or (OH). Or I could get
triplets, an oxygen and two hydrogen (HOH) or (OHH) or (HHO) or maybe
two oxygen and a hydrogen (OHO) or (OOH) or (HOO). And then he would
go babbling on about all the possible combinations of four atoms that
could form, and then the combinations of five.
Oh he'd have a fine old time generating some huge number that would
represent the odds against all the atoms in that container joining to
form the same kind of molecule. Creationists just love to indulge in
that kind of mathmatical masturbation, playing with numbers to make
themselves feel good about God.
But reality is that you would end up with just one combination, a
triplet of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen-- HOH. Why? Because there
is no chance involved. None. Just the laws of physics, because that's
what governs how atoms and molecules go together, and they only go
together certain ways. Those ways are various, but not infinitely so,
and all those permutations the Creationist tries to sell you is just a
lot of *****.
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power.
No it ain't! Spare us the mathmatical fabrications!
The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator,
that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the
living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer
and
mathematician.]
Who knew ***** about microbiology and was out to prove panspermia, not
God.
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is
the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system.
What kind of system stone? I called you on this crapola once!
What kind of disorder?
Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder.
Not the kind of disorder you hope we'll assume stone.
The sort of order created by photosynthesis is NOT the kind of order
governed by the 2nd law. Throughout the universe the kind of disorder
the Creationist hopes we will assume is meant when that word is used
---disorder in the arrangement of atoms and molecules--- is not taking
place. "Things" are not breaking down, that sort of order is in fact
constantly on the increase.
All over the universe stars, including our sun, are busy making more
complex elements out of simpler ones. They make helium out of
hydrogen, then carbon out of the helium, followed by oxygen, neon,
sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon. Later reactions transform these
elements into calcium, iron, nickel, chromium and copper, each element
more complex than the last, having more protons and neutrons and more
and more layered shells of electrons.
Atoms in turn eagerly combine to form complex molecules. Oxygen and
hydrogen combine to form water, chlorine and sodium to form salt.
Hydrocarbons form enormously complex molecules. Complexity increasing
all the time, and the 2nd law doesn't mind because this kind of
complexity isn't the kind of 'order' it governs. Breakdown of such
constructs isn't the sort of disorder it demands.
Molecules of water in chaotic, disorganized vapour form condense on
your window to form intricate frost patterns, and in the air to form
snowflakes of amazing complexity, and the 2nd law does not protest
either. Order out of chaos, spontaneously, everywhere.
In industry chemicals combine to form molecular chains of almost
endless length and complexity, and in the case of many plastics the
environmentalists complain because these plastics have no tendency to
break down and fall into disorder at all.
The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy,
No it doesn't! Where does the 2nd law apply stone? Do you know?
I've excised the remainder of this Creationist ***** because it's
all of a kind. Bad science aimed at the scientifically illiterate. The
Christian isn't supposed to lie, according to their commandments. Yet
the Creationist lies knowingly and egregiously, apparently feeling
that a few fibs will be forgiven if it saves a soul.
Don't buy it folks! There may be a God, but he's not supporting this
crowd!
## The Creationist believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life. Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
Thank you. I have such a hard time explaining it to atheists, but you
didnt.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
06 Dec 2004 04:34:55 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> writes:
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life. Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
Okay, so you've managed to get onto Davies' "deep deism" concept
without much of a problem. (Oddly, I know a *lot* of atheists who
understand and even respect Davies' work; if you're unfamiliar with it,
go read.) But arguing that the universe was set "to create life" from
the moment of the Big Bang onwards is a bit of a misnomer, as there are
models of physics that predict universe with a *much richer* collection
of life.
I could argue that the universe is set to create silicon life
eventually, and we're just a stepping stone, destined to be wiped out by
our cybernetic replacements someday. And even they will be wiped out by
the heat death of the universe. Such a remarkable divine plan!
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
06 Dec 2004 09:54:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:21:24 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life.
Christian De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning microbiologist, in his book
"Vital Dust", tems life a "cosmic imperative". He argues that life
will spontaneously arise anywhere in the universe that conditions are
suitable.
Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
"I do think the universe came into being with human life as a
certain inevitability." you state. No. Life as an inevitability yes...
human life no. That something evolves is not chance, but just what
evolves IS chance. As Stephen J. Gould remarked, if the clock could be
wound back to the Cambrian Explosion and restarted, a wonderful flora
and faun would evolve, but it wouldn't be the same one we got this
time.
Thank you. I have such a hard time explaining it to atheists, but you
didnt.
Maybe that's because I'm an atheist?
## Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
06 Dec 2004 09:05:19 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:54v8r05b6g54pi745mo0eh1ffot2d21s8p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:21:24 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of
physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life.
Christian De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning microbiologist, in his book
"Vital Dust", tems life a "cosmic imperative". He argues that life
will spontaneously arise anywhere in the universe that conditions are
suitable.
Yes. I view it now as well established fact. The existence of life on our
world is all the proof we need. Why we need to find life on other worlds to
prove this is beyond me.
Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to
create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
"I do think the universe came into being with human life as a
certain inevitability." you state. No. Life as an inevitability yes...
human life no. That something evolves is not chance, but just what
evolves IS chance. As Stephen J. Gould remarked, if the clock could be
wound back to the Cambrian Explosion and restarted, a wonderful flora
and faun would evolve, but it wouldn't be the same one we got this
time.
On this point we disagree completely. I think the one and only thing that
could have happened, did. Humans. Ive waited my entire life for someone to
prove the validity of chance or randomness. Ive yet to see a proof for it.
Just rambling speculation based on ignorance. "Oh, since we dont understand
all the complexities involved... well label it as random," seems like a
rather lame excuse to me.
Thank you. I have such a hard time explaining it to atheists, but you
didnt.
Maybe that's because I'm an atheist?
I know. Our difference is, you view the inevitable as nothing special,
while I view it as ticklishly enticing. My view is that we were
inevitable... "why would that be?"
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
07 Dec 2004 09:11:12 AM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:kLudnYqtzY9vgCjcRVn-sQ@gbronline.com...
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:54v8r05b6g54pi745mo0eh1ffot2d21s8p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:21:24 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of
physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life.
Christian De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning microbiologist, in his book
"Vital Dust", tems life a "cosmic imperative". He argues that life
will spontaneously arise anywhere in the universe that conditions are
suitable.
Yes. I view it now as well established fact. The existence of life on
our
world is all the proof we need. Why we need to find life on other worlds
to
prove this is beyond me.
Proof of what? Life appeared, that is a fact. Whether life would appear
again if we played the film again we dont know. It sounds likely, yes, but
we cannot perform the experiment, so we cannot say anything about it.
Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to
create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
"I do think the universe came into being with human life as a
certain inevitability." you state. No. Life as an inevitability yes...
human life no. That something evolves is not chance, but just what
evolves IS chance. As Stephen J. Gould remarked, if the clock could be
wound back to the Cambrian Explosion and restarted, a wonderful flora
and faun would evolve, but it wouldn't be the same one we got this
time.
On this point we disagree completely. I think the one and only thing that
could have happened, did. Humans. Ive waited my entire life for someone
to
prove the validity of chance or randomness. Ive yet to see a proof for
it.
Just rambling speculation based on ignorance. "Oh, since we dont
understand
all the complexities involved... well label it as random," seems like a
rather lame excuse to me.
Interresting conflation of teleology and pseudoscience. On one hand you like
to believe that humans are the purpose of the universe (simply because you
like the idea of being "special") and on the other you criticize the idea of
randomness. The universe is a physical system. Why would it have a purpose?
"Purpose" exists only in your head. You could also say that the purpose of
the universe was to produce cockroaches, mold or hedgehogs. They are
meaningless statements.
Thank you. I have such a hard time explaining it to atheists, but you
didnt.
Maybe that's because I'm an atheist?
I know. Our difference is, you view the inevitable as nothing special,
while I view it as ticklishly enticing. My view is that we were
inevitable... "why would that be?"
Firstly, the inevitability is simply a conjecture. Secondly, if you like the
idea that a sky pixie planned and developed you, suit yourself, but dont use
or abuse science for your self-indulgent purposes. I bet the mold growing on
the ceiling above my shower think that the universe was fine-tuned for their
growth. They are wrong, of course. And so are you. But I guess that some
people find the idea of being special (even if it is as a species) rather
flattering. It's sort of sad, really, that people should need to resort to
the notion that some god created them to feel a sense of purpose and
fulfillment. We are fragile beings.
regards
Milan
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Darwin Become Dogma ? |
07 Dec 2004 06:29:38 PM |
|
|
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31lv8lF3e37diU1@individual.net...
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:kLudnYqtzY9vgCjcRVn-sQ@gbronline.com...
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:54v8r05b6g54pi745mo0eh1ffot2d21s8p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:21:24 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
Youve made my particular point wonderfully well. That the laws of
physics,
chemistry, math, etc., demand the creation of life.
Christian De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning microbiologist, in his book
"Vital Dust", tems life a "cosmic imperative". He argues that life
will spontaneously arise anywhere in the universe that conditions are
suitable.
Yes. I view it now as well established fact. The existence of life on
our
world is all the proof we need. Why we need to find life on other worlds
to
prove this is beyond me.
Proof of what? Life appeared, that is a fact. Whether life would appear
again if we played the film again we dont know. It sounds likely, yes, but
we cannot perform the experiment, so we cannot say anything about it.
Of course we can. If everything happened exactly as it has, life, humans,
would occur. The only thing to stop it from reoccuring would be for random
chance to enter the picture. So its a fact, unless you somehow can prove
random chance occurs.
Chemicals can only, and
must, behave exactly as their predicted to. Our Universe was set to
create
life from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.
"I do think the universe came into being with human life as a
certain inevitability." you state. No. Life as an inevitability yes...
human life no. That something evolves is not chance, but just what
evolves IS chance. As Stephen J. Gould remarked, if the clock could be
wound back to the Cambrian Explosion and restarted, a wonderful flora
and faun would evolve, but it wouldn't be the same one we got this
time.
On this point we disagree completely. I think the one and only thing
that
could have happened, did. Humans. Ive waited my entire life for someone
to
prove the validity of chance or randomness. Ive yet to see a proof for
it.
Just rambling speculation based on ignorance. "Oh, since we dont
understand
all the complexities involved... well label it as random," seems like a
rather lame excuse to me.
Interresting conflation of teleology and pseudoscience. On one hand you
like
to believe that humans are the purpose of the universe (simply because you
like the idea of being "special")
Sorry moron. You fail miserably when trying to others minds. I suggest
hanging up your hat, and the addled mind it encases.
and on the other you criticize the idea of
randomness.
Randomness is the dumbest idea thats been held onto this long in the history
of physical science. It will fall by the wayside. What has ever happened
thats random. Anywhere? Name something.
The universe is a physical system. Why would it have a purpose?
"Purpose" exists only in your head. You could also say that the purpose of
the universe was to produce cockroaches, mold or hedgehogs. They are
meaningless statements.
You blather against arguements I dont make. Keep blathering if you like.
Its your time...
Thank you. I have such a hard time explaining it to atheists, but you
didnt.
Maybe that's because I'm an atheist?
I know. Our difference is, you view the inevitable as nothing special,
while I view it as ticklishly enticing. My view is that we were
inevitable... "why would that be?"
Firstly, the inevitability is simply a conjecture. Secondly, if you like
the
idea that a sky pixie planned and developed you, suit yourself, but dont
use
or abuse science for your self-indulgent purposes.
Pull your head out. You show a complete ignorance of science AND religion.
This all rests on one thing... can randomness occur? The answer is no. All
things have their cause. Dont continue being an ***** by attributing beliefs
to me I dont hold. That simply makes you an *****... and a blowhard.
I bet the mold growing on
the ceiling above my shower think that the universe was fine-tuned for
their
growth. They are wrong, of course. And so are you. But I guess that some
people find the idea of being special (even if it is as a species) rather
flattering. It's sort of sad, really, that people should need to resort to
| | | | | | | | | |
