Creationism

TheConversation.com Makes an About-Face on Teaching Creationism in Science Classes – Now is Supportive!

Spread the love

TheConversation.com touts itself as having “academic rigor” combined with “journalistic flair”. In polite society today, creationism is usually out of bounds for this milieu. However, I was surprised to find that, in a recent article, they at least seemed to promote the idea of treating creationism with respect not just in history, but in STEM subjects.

The article says that modern ways of teaching are problematic for students because the subjects

prevent them from using their cultural worldviews, spirituality and language in the STEM learning setting.

So what, specifically did they mean by spirituality? I clicked on the link, and lo and behold, it was about teaching creationism in the classroom!

This is a radical shift from their previous position, which was that creationism should be treated as a conspiracy theory (see here and here), or that it should only be treated as history (see here).

Anyway, I would not have guessed that TheConversation would have had such an overnight shift from calling creationism a conspiracy theory to saying it should be a part of science class.

It’s possible I’m misreading the article somehow, but I don’t think I am. I would love to have other people’s take on this.

18 Replies to “TheConversation.com Makes an About-Face on Teaching Creationism in Science Classes – Now is Supportive!

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The important part is the recognition that blacks and Hispanics are hardnosed Christians. Until now the education establishment has been trying to stuff LGBT crap and Dawkins/Darwin down their throats, and then “shockedly” wondering why the kids hate school.

    Atheism has always been the privileged province of aristocrats who can hire servants to face life for them. Poor people who have to deal with life directly have always been hardass theists.

  2. 2
    johnnyb says:

    Good points, Pol.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    I am a creationist. I believe in a 14 billion year old universe, a 3.5 billion year old Earth with life appearing first over 3 billion years ago.

    I believe natural selection works to a significant degree in helping life forms adapt to changing environments. I do not believe natural selection leads to new complex biological capabilities because there is no evidence to support how it could and definitely none to support that it did.

    I believe in evolution that is defined correctly, whether it is changing allele distribution or the appearance of new life forms over the history of life. I believe both are demonstrable. I recognize that no one has found a natural way that certain life forms could have arisen.

    I believe the four laws of physics are responsible for 99.9999% of natural phenomenon discovered by the scientific process. I believe the best science points to some form of intelligent intervention in the history of the universe but only in a very small number of phenomenon.

    So what is my form of creationism?

    Is it called common sense because it is based on evidence?

    Why isn’t the above being pushed as an alternative to be taught in schools.

    Aside: are the Intelligent Design advocates their own worse enemies by not pushing common sense?

    Aside2: anyone want to add to the list?

  4. 4
    johnnyb says:

    Jerry –

    I’m curious about your perceptions of the ID movement. In what ways do you perceive that it differs from what you are saying?

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    I’m curious about your perceptions of the ID movement. In what ways do you perceive that it differs from what you are saying?

    They do little/nothing to dispel the perception that ID is different from creationism. Which in 75% of the knowledgeable public automatically identified with YEC.

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    “They do little/nothing to dispel the perception that ID is different from creationism”

    Hmmm…. strange. To me, that seems to be about 90% of what people in the ID movement do. I would have even said the opposite – we spend far too much time differentiating ourselves from creationism and worrying about it rather than just pursuing the work of applying ID to biology or developing the theory of ID itself.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    strange. To me, that seems to be about 90% of what people in the ID movement do

    It’s not what the perception is with the general public. To them ID and YEC are the same thing. I can tell you that dissenting from Darwinism in the polite public is a no-no. They think you are some sort of kook if you do.

    worrying about it rather than just pursuing the work of applying ID to biology or developing the theory of ID itself.

    I see this as a problem because ID is not a theory per se but a conclusion to a small number of findings in the history of science. I wouldn’t know what in biology to apply it to.

    ID mainly has a PR problem of its own creation.

    However, in all honesty. the news media is so biased that it will never give it a fair hearing. Every once in a while you get a dissenter changing sides but that is buried.

  8. 8
    johnnyb says:

    “It’s not what the perception is with the general public. To them ID and YEC are the same thing.”

    Oh, I agree entirely, but that has nothing to do with ID’ers themselves. Perhaps you are newer to the movement, but you should go back and look at, say, the disgraceful way that Bill Dembski was treated in the early days of the movement. As an example, I’m going to guess that you would think of Michael Behe as a creationist. Most people are unaware that he is actually a theistic evolutionist, and has said so in every one of his books. But what people hear aren’t Behe and Dembski, but anti-ID’ers talking *about* Behe and Dembski. So, I agree with your perception of the perception, but it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the ID community says, this is how it is going to be relayed to the public.

    “ID is not a theory per se but a conclusion to a small number of findings in the history of science.”

    Here I would disagree. I agree that ID is not a *grand* theory (i.e., it doesn’t try to incorporate all of the history/diversity of life), but I think that the methodologies for design inference and the resulting modes of thought would qualify it as a theory.

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Oh, I agree entirely, but that has nothing to do with ID’ers themselves.

    There is little that ID has done to dispel this. ID has an enemy who is controlling the narrative and I have seen little to counter this narrative.

    Here’s a comment I made 14 years ago about this problem. Nothing has really changed.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-the-honest-darwinist/#comment-126363

    Perhaps you are newer to the movement, but you should go back and look at, say, the disgraceful way that Bill Dembski was treated in the early days of the movement.

    Dembski actually had me banned from this site because he took a misguided way to defend ID and I called him on it. DaveScot got me reinstated. This was about 14 years ago.

    As an example, I’m going to guess that you would think of Michael Behe as a creationist.

    I was the first one to review Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, on this site in 2007.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-edge-of-evolution-the-obvious-presented-with-details/#comment-125592

    but I think that the methodologies for design inference and the resulting modes of thought would qualify it as a theory.

    Nonsense. Look around you and there are a zillion evidences of ID. Every manufactured item is intelligently designed. The ways are near infinite that any specific item could have happened. It would be pointless to pinpoint the way the Designer did it with life and life forms.

    But you can conclude that there are ways of doing it and it’s extremely unlikely it could happen by any natural mechanism.

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    I have made a couple comments recently about ID being better science that the science that is practiced in every university on the planet. Maybe ID should be called

    Science Plus or Science+

    And the theme would be

    ID puts the Plus into Science

    That would get the ire of the anti-ID people but the irony would be that it would be true and they could not prove it wasn’t.

  11. 11
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Jerry
    I agree. I also call myself a Creationist.
    Better to go on the offense. Napoleon said “The logical end of defensive warfare is surrender. ”
    And far better to watch a guy blow his top than to put up with his pompous bigotry.

    For that reason, Steven Meyer has done us a great service with the God Hypothesis. Call a spade a spade.

    I love discussing what a settled scientific law is;
    It is a statement describing a regularity, that has been repeatedly validated, and has never been shown to be false, in spite of extensive efforts to do so. .

    I then cite two examples of settled scientific aws .
    The first is the Law of Conservation of Energy.
    Everyone nods.
    The second is the Creationist Law of Biogenesis.
    “Absent divine intervention, life comes only from life”
    That invariably turns up the temperature in the room.

  12. 12
    AaronS1978 says:

    I also like to add the standard model to that
    It is the one theory that I’ve seen proven time and time again I have physically seen it

    Versus Darwinian evolution were there always seems to be an exception that somehow magically fits the equation but it’s an exception at first until you logic it up a little bit and then it ends up being “it’s exactly what you would expect” blah blah blah

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    In response to Tamie Lee’s claim that the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Biogenesis are ‘settled science’, Aaron states that,

    I also like to add the standard model to that
    It is the one theory that I’ve seen proven time and time again I have physically seen it

    And although many people may try to quibble that science is never really ‘settled’, I would disagree and hold that certain areas of science, when they reach the threshold of having their mathematical predictions reach perfect agreement with experimental results, are ‘settled, (as far as measurement accuracy will allow and even though certain mathematical refinements of the theory may be forthcoming in the future).

    With that being said, (and in regards to the standard model), the standard model is not ‘settled’ in that it has not reached perfect agreement between its mathematical predictions and experimental results.

    As the following article ‘deconstructing’ the standard model stated, “,,, Intriguingly, this part of the equation makes an assumption that contradicts discoveries made by physicists in recent years. It incorrectly assumes that particles called neutrinos have no mass.,,,”

    The deconstructed Standard Model equation – July 2016
    The Standard Model is far more than elementary particles arranged in a table.
    Excerpt: Section 3
    ,,, Intriguingly, this part of the equation makes an assumption that contradicts discoveries made by physicists in recent years. It incorrectly assumes that particles called neutrinos have no mass.,,,
    https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

    Aaron might argue that the assumption within the standard model equation “that particles called neutrinos have no mass” is only an anomaly at the edge of the standard model that has no bearing on the overall validity of the standard model itself. In response I would argue that Newton’s theory of gravitation only had anomalies at the edges of its theory, yet those anomalies led Einstein to a total reconceptualization of Gravity with General Relativity.

    In short, the standard model should not be considered ‘settled science’ since even minor disagreement of a theory’s mathematical predictions with experimental results can lead to major upheavals in science.

    Even wikipedia itself (no friend of ID), states that the standard model is not ‘settled science’ in that there is, apparently, another model that is in competition with the standard model.

    Specifically they state, “Data are also needed from high-energy particle experiments to suggest which versions of current scientific models are more likely to be correct – in particular to choose between the Standard Model and Higgsless model and to validate their predictions and allow further theoretical development.”

    Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
    Excerpt: Purpose
    Many physicists hope that the Large Hadron Collider will help answer some of the fundamental open questions in physics, which concern the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the interrelation between quantum mechanics and general relativity.[15]
    Data are also needed from high-energy particle experiments to suggest which versions of current scientific models are more likely to be correct – in particular to choose between the Standard Model and Higgsless model and to validate their predictions and allow further theoretical development.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Purpose

    An older entry in wikipedia even went so far as to state, “Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV energy level, as the Standard Model appears to be unsatisfactory.”

    LHC – Purpose
    Excerpt: Data are also needed from high-energy particle experiments to suggest which versions of current scientific models are more likely to be correct – in particular to choose between the Standard Model and Higgsless model and to validate their predictions and allow further theoretical development. Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV energy level, as the Standard Model appears to be unsatisfactory.
    – older entry on wikipedia

    So again, the standard model should not be considered ‘settled science’.

    Moreover, the standard model also fails to account for Baryon asymmetry, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Gravity.

    As wikipedia, (again no friend of ID), itself states,

    Standard Model,
    Excerpt: Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not fully explain baryon asymmetry, incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

    That the standard model would fail to account for Dark Energy and Dark Matter in particular is very interesting since Dark Energy and Dark Matter account for 95.4% of the ‘stuff’ of the universe, and ordinary matter, which the standard model model supposedly explains, only accounts for 4.6% of the universe.

    Table 2.1 – Hugh Ross – Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
    Inventory of All the Stuff That Makes Up the Universe (Visible vs. Invisible)
    Dark Energy – 72.1%
    Exotic Dark Matter – 23.3%
    Ordinary Dark Matter – 4.35%
    Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) – 0.27%
    Planets – 0.0001%
    Invisible portion – Universe – 99.73%
    Visible portion – Universe – .27%
    https://books.google.com/books?id=U5LToA5PI-UC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

    As should be needless to say, it is a fairly embarrassing situation for the standard model, (which is widely held to be the correct first step towards a ‘theory off everything’), to fail to account for 95.4% of the universe.

    Over on the other thread entitled, “Fine Tuning Explains The Ugliness Of The Standard Model”, Kairosfocus made, (unusual for him), a very easy to understand remark. 🙂 A remark that brilliantly portrays how many particle physicists, who are atheistic in their beliefs, go about the business of trying to comprehend the universe.

    “I am reminded of ants who are art critics, climbing over the Mona Lisa, and debating fine details of paint pigments and the like, not realising that the tiny swatch of colour they belabour was executed as a single stroke of the brush, part of a composition of genius.”
    KF
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-fine-tuning-explains-the-ugliness-of-the-standard-model-of-the-universe/#comment-732409

    And although the standard model may be very good at elucidating the “fine details of paint pigments and the like”, (save for the neutrino anomaly which I already mentioned), it is, as Dark Energy and Dark Matter clearly illustrate, very bad a ‘predicting’ anything beyond the standard model.

    As the article in the other thread highlighted,

    “Fine Tuning Explains The Ugliness Of The Standard Model”
    Excerpt: “the Standard Model is mathematically troubling but physically very elegant. It explains exactly what we see in experiments, and,,, it predicts no more,”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-fine-tuning-explains-the-ugliness-of-the-standard-model-of-the-universe/

    So while the standard model, (save for minor anomalies), may be very good at describing the microscopic interactions of elementary particles, i.e. “fine details of paint pigments and the like”, the standard model, to repeat, does not predict dark matter or dark energy.

    And there is now a very good reason to believe that the standard model will NEVER be able to be extended to account for Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

    Specifically, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in 2020, the preceding proof was extended to make it even more robust.

    Undecidability of the Spectral Gap – June 16, 2020
    Toby Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf

    Spectral gap (physics)
    In quantum mechanics, the spectral gap of a system is the energy difference between its ground state and its first excited state.[1][2] The mass gap is the spectral gap between the vacuum and the lightest particle. A Hamiltonian with a spectral gap is called a gapped Hamiltonian, and those that do not are called gapless.
    In solid-state physics, the most important spectral gap is for the many-body system of electrons in a solid material, in which case it is often known as an energy gap.
    In quantum many-body systems, ground states of gapped Hamiltonians have exponential decay of correlations.[3][4][5]
    In 2015 it was shown that the problem of determining the existence of a spectral gap is undecidable in two or more dimensions.[6][7] The authors used an aperiodic tiling of quantum Turing machines and showed that this hypothetical material becomes gapped if and only if the machine halts.[8] The one-dimensional case was also proved undecidable in 2020 by constructing a chain of interacting qudits divided into blocks that gain energy if they represent a full computation by a Turing machine, and showing that this system becomes gapped if and only if the machine does not halt.[9]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_gap_(physics)

    Thus with this proof now in place, there is no place for reductive materialists to hide. i.e. We can now be extremely confident that, mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of the standard model will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, (and General Relativity).

    To move beyond the standard model, and the futile “ants who are art critics’ reductive materialistic approach of trying to find a ‘theory of everything’, and to try and find a successful ‘theory of everything’, it is important to point out another gaping hole that is in the standard model.

    As I pointed out in the other thread, “Fine Tuning Explains The Ugliness Of The Standard Model”, the standard model was born out of the success of Quantum Electrodynamics,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-fine-tuning-explains-the-ugliness-of-the-standard-model-of-the-universe/#comment-732346
    Yet, in formulating Quantum Electrodynamics, Feynman and others ‘brushed infinity under the rug’.

    And as I further pointed out in the thread, in ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ they also ended up brushing quantum measurement itself under the rug.

    As the following article states, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Review of: “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”
    by Adam Becker
    Excerpt: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and their contemporaries knew well that the theory they devised could not be made compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. First order in time, but second order in space, Schrödinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    Yet quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes is presence fully known in quantum theory.

    As the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it. “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Thus, for them to brush quantum measurement, and therefore conscious observation, even consciousness itself, under the rug in their formulation of QED (and subsequently the formulation of the Standard Model), is simply unacceptable for any theory that is held to be the correct first step towards a ‘theory of everything’.

    Obviously, to forsake the existence of conscious observers themselves in your supposed ‘theory of everything’ is to forsake, arguably, the most important thing that needs to be explained in your supposed ‘theory of everything’. Namely, it forsakes the very existence of the very theorists who are seeking a ‘theory of everything’ in the first place!

    Needless to say, that is rather glaring omission for theorists to make in their very first step towards a supposedly correct ‘theory of everything’.

    Obviously, since theorists have brushed conscious observation itself under the rug when they formulated the standard model, and have therefore brushed themselves under the rug in the process, then it necessarily follows that the standard model, nor any other model that forsakes conscious observers in its formulation, will ever be a correct ‘theory of everything’.

    Anyways, to move beyond the futile reductive materialistic approach of trying to find the correct, or at least a plausible, ‘theory of everything’.

    Although special relativity and quantum mechanics were, via the mathematical sleight of hand of renormalization, mathematically unified with one another in order to produce the very successful theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, no such mathematical sleight of hand exists for unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

    Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.”

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    And although there readily appears to be an infinite mathematical divide that forever separates the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Theory from the macroscopic descriptions of General relativity, (also see the previously mentioned Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics), all hope is not lost for finding the correct, or at least a plausible, ‘theory of everything’.

    If we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned and as is now empirically warranted with the closing of the ‘free-will loop-hole by Zeilinger and company), then we find a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum theory.

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Philippians 2:8-9
    And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

    ,,, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,, then a solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ readily pops out for us in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    In short, and as I also touched upon in the other thread, “Fine Tuning Explains The Ugliness Of The Standard Model”, the Shroud of Turin, (the most scientifically scrutinized ancient relic of man), gives us evidence that both quantum mechanics and gravity were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-fine-tuning-explains-the-ugliness-of-the-standard-model-of-the-universe/#comment-732348

    Video and verses

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Of final note: although modern theoretical physicists, (for whatever severely misguided reason), are apparently very adverse to ever allowing a ‘divine foot in the door’, (R. Lewontin), might I suggest that the Christian founders of modern science would be very pleased to see this very plausible solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything.

    For instance, I hold that both Newton and Planck would both be very pleased with this very plausible solution

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    – Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM.

    “Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view”.
    – Max Planck – 1931 – a main originator of Quantum Theory who has many fundamental constants named after him

  16. 16
    AaronS1978 says:

    Et tu BA77 et tu.

    All I was saying was that the standard model Has consistently shown predictions that have been observable

    It actually supports fine tuning

    Unlike Darwinian evolution which is whenever an exception shows up with a little logic you magically get “it’s exactly what you would expect” When all it is is just a God of gaps argument

    And anything with dark in the name I wouldn’t use as examples of things the standard model can’t explain, honestly dark energy, dark flow, and dark matter all are kind of add hocks that constantly AVOID observation possibly because they don’t exist

    I like the standard model so poop on you :p

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Et tu?

    Strange response Aaron. Do you really believe that I’ve betrayed you and stabbed you in the back like Marcus Brutus did Caesar?

    What Is The Meaning Of “Et Tu Brute?”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMqjkgHZ-ls

    You go on to state “I like the standard model so poop on you :p”

    It has nothing to do with me ‘liking’ the standard model or not. It has to do with the scientific fact that the standard model is not to be considered ‘settled science’.

    As I pointed out, besides the other flaws with the standard model, there is also an ‘anomaly’ within the theory itself, concerning the mass of neutrinos, (which is not a minor discrepancy), that proves that it is not to be considered ‘settled science’.

    And, although it seems that you, via “et tu”, took my post personally, I can assure you that it was by no means meant to be personal.

    In fact, personally I usually respect your opinions very much, (such as I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion on Darwinian evolution not being anywhere near ‘settled science), I just don’t agree with your opinion on the standard model being ‘settled science’. More importantly, the science itself disagrees with your opinion that it is ‘settled science’.

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    My good sir my response was that I was kidding around with you. I have no intention and engaging in an actual full on argument with you or debate on the standard model

    I’m saying that as a Theory it is far superior to evolution as it is shown predictions over and over and over again

    It is perfectly OK if you don’t agree with me and you think it’s not settled science many things can be considered not settled science

    But I am just kidding around with you and the response that I got from you I thought was a little bit much because all I was saying was the theory better than evolution and it is far more proven then evolution because we have observable predictions that we have tested multiple times

    Versus Darwinian evolution whenever something stupid comes up that contradicts it well they find a way to push it in there because it’s a God of gaps

    Now I do know quite a bit about neutrinos and I thought it was funny that you brought that up immediately because I could’ve but again I’m not trying to argue anything with you or even debate it

    Because my point had nothing to do with it it was just that it’s better than evolution and it has far more predict outcomes which actually support fine tuning in the universe

    That’s all BA77
    The other thing was the whole reason for “et tu”with me was over the fact that you blow up the thread and started correcting me on the standard model which you normally do the Sev Bob OH and chuckydarwin (bah)

    I was being facetious and joking around with you

    Because I generally consider you want the same side

    And I totally respect your opinion to and your viewpoints

    So I’m not going to disagree with you, but im not really saying that it’s super settled science either. it is far superior to the lunacy that is the god of gaps known as Darwinian evolution

Leave a Reply