Idiocy from Media Matters, some disgraceful US outfit, Ben Carson edition

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 28, 2015

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ben Carson, pediatric neurosurgeon, saved children’s lives. Here is a typical Darwin follower’s’ response, demanding worship of their idol:

So imagine it’s 1970 or so, and you’re young Ben Carson, sitting in a biology class at Yale University. With your sharp mind and strong study habits, you don’t have much problem understanding the material, grasping the copious evidence underlying the theory of evolution, all the fossils going back millions of years, how it all fits together in an endless process that affects everything from a towering redwood down to a microscopic virus. And yet, the whole thing sounds like an attack on the beliefs about the universe you were taught your whole life from your family and your church. How can you resolve this contradiction?

The resolution came somewhere along the way for Carson: Satan. Evolution is Satan’s doing.

The fact that Carson believes this is a true puzzlement. Because Carson is an undeniably smart man.

A Canadian mother/grandmother (who cannot vote in the United States) responds:

I must testify, unaccustomed to the glaring lights: One of my kids was hit by a car in 1978, and I am glad to say she was tended by a pediatric neurosurgeon, and it turned out well. One of my grandkids needed neurosurgery more recently. From this last weekend, I see she is doing well.

But I want THIS on the record: I do not give a dam what a pediatric neurosurgeon believes about “evolution.”

I do not see why anyone ELSE should care either.

How DARE anyone make that an issue compared to a track record for a specific type of neurosurgery?

What has our society come to that this type of toxic waste affects our understanding?

Note: “Evolution” (= Darwinism, because that is what these vicious operatives of progressive billionaires always really mean when they say “evolution”) forced many African American women into sterilization ops, as Carson must surely know.

Added: While we are here, why does anyone care what any US Prez thinks about evolution? If it is really a science topic, shouldn’t it be like the Large Hadron Collider or Pluto’s geography? If not, what IS it?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Thanks for the Newton quote KF. Sir Isaac liked to capitalize words and was also into marginalia: https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/marginalia-in-the-18th-19th-centuries-it-was-the-custom-to-write-in-the-margins-of-books/ He was ahead of his time on the whole Alchemy thing. Still is, as a matter a fact:)ppolish_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Everybody should be hostile to materialism because materialists cannot understand the elementary math of combinatorial explosion. Materialists are also superstitious believers in emergent magic. What is the point of escaping the tyranny of the one true religion if only to fall into the clutch of another?Mapou_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @59:
PS: I find Newton in Opticks, Query 31, has a far sounder insight: ... I think if we are going to move ahead soundly, we are going to have to first back up 300 years.
Modern science, including evolution, cosmic expansion, etc. are in complete accord with what Newton wrote. There’s no need to go back to recover something that we haven’t lost. This cite from Newton, paired with your comment #58 leaves me to believe you have blinded yourself with hostility to materialism; materialists generally work and think in accord with Newton’s insight. You accuse materialists of having a “hostile mindset”; that may be true but so does the person in your mirror. sean s.sean samis_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

DS, If any man in public life in the USA today has earned the right to a generous reading, it is Dr Carson; e.g. he probably used big bang as metonymy for naturalistic cosmologies from Hydrogen to the sol system at the proposed point of abiogenesis. And he has put his finger on a very strategic spot; if we were serious about healing our civilisation, we would build on strengths and compensate for weaknesses. But we are far too polarised and animated by hubris to do that. KFkairosfocus_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

PS: I find Newton in Opticks, Query 31, has a far sounder insight:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
I think if we are going to move ahead soundly, we are going to have to first back up 300 years.kairosfocus_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

SS, evolutionary materialism is an ideology that likes to dress up in a lab coat. Lewontin's NYRB remarks are a capital illustration:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
That many people have been led to imagine this sort of thing is scientific rationality shows just how broken down our civilisation is today. Hence, my ever deepening pessimism. KFkairosfocus_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD,
DaveS -apologies, a mixture of getting up at 4am and thinking about other things made me come out erroneously with nil hypothesis when I meant to say “the basic principle of Occams razor”
Thanks for the clarification. I don't see how Occam's razor applies to dark matter (and dark energy), however. Astrophysicists aren't choosing between two theories, one with and one without dark matter, each of which predicts the observations equally well.daveS_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Dawinism, especially neo-Darwinism, is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.” - Dr Michael Behe The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
bornagain77_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Evolutionism isn’t science.
Evolution is a scientific theory. “Evolutionism”? I don’t even know what that is. sean s.sean samis_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

DaveS -apologies, a mixture of getting up at 4am and thinking about other things made me come out erroneously with nil hypothesis when I meant to say "the basic principle of Occams razor"Dr JDD_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

KF,
Carson may have erred on details but has in fact identified an underlying issue that needs to be fairly faced. But, too often, is not.
I think you're being quite generous with Dr Carson here. Of course if you change the context and correct his errors, you can come up with a sensible statement. I wonder if he thought to run his argument by any physicists? I expect he would have had some as colleagues in his former job.daveS_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

sean samis:
Abandoning proper science and reason is a direct threat to the survival of the US.
Evolutionism isn't science.Virgil Cain_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

DS, I never made such an argument. BC has a serious point on planetary system origins, which extends more broadly to the issue of conflating models with significant weaknesses with facts; i.e. there is a problem here of overly confident presentations of things that are not as strong as they are often portrayed. (And, for all that I routinely use and am inclined to accept the BB model and the star formation and life cycle models, I am not unaware that there are significant concerns and limitations about it. Just, I am inclined to take expansion seriously and back-track it to a singularity. And the H-R diagrams of clusters are impressive.) Carson may have erred on details but has in fact identified an underlying issue that needs to be fairly faced. But, too often, is not. Which, is actually a pretty good mark for a strategic thinker, raising the right point to put in a question, even if not 100% right in how it is done. Next, as for whether one needs to have a fully correct view or letter perfect recall of the usual origins narratives to be an effective government official, there are three quick points: 1: No-one can certify to a fully correct view 2: Far more important is the ethics of truthfulness and humility in the face of massive uncertainty and limitations, which is the real issue. 3: You have experts to give briefings, so the real issue is to get alternatives, pros and cons and balances on the table and make a prudent decision on practical matters. (Where, I fail to see where a litmus test on lining up with the pseudo-consensus is a good sign of real ability.) And being willing to question a pseudo-consensus imposed by institutional influence and power [aka groupthink] is actually a good sign, only in so asking he needs better briefing. Bay of Pigs is a good, classic example often studied in MBA courses on what groupthink among the very bright can do to policy. That said, I strongly doubt that someone like Dr Carson is reasonably electable in our civlisation today absent rather unusual circumstances, and I am very concerned that those who are electable under present circumstances will be part of the problem not part of the solution. Especially, those who carry the seal of approval of the gatekeepers on the pseudo-consensus, and who are anointed by such as "bright," etc. I make no secret that I think our civilisation is progressing tot he point where the political hectic fever spoken of by Machiavelli may all too soon be evident to all but far too late to cure. March of folly backed up by groupthink and pseudo-consensus with guardians of political correctness. Those who refuse to learn from sound, costly and painful but sadly relevant history . . . KFkairosfocus_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

News @8:
Who cares what any American president believes about “evolution”?
Everyone who thinks the US needs to be competitive in the world should. Competitiveness is essential to our security. Opinions about Evolution are an indicator of what a person thinks of science and reason itself. Science and reason are essential to the technological advances that made the US a world power and could keep it so. Abandoning proper science and reason is a direct threat to the survival of the US. ... and I am prepared to swear I am not paid by the Darwin lobby or some political campaign. Heck, I didn’t even know there was a “Darwin lobby”. sean s.sean samis_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

News @2:
...are you morally certain that you are not paid by a Darwin outfit?
I am absolutely certain that I am not. Not that it would make a difference. sean s.sean samis_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Your #24, KF: There are some extraordinary, yet, time-honoured truths that emerge from WWII. Although I believe that our worldly, analytical intelligence is a degradation of our unitive, more intrinsically spiritual intelligence, our wisdom (the worth of the former ultimately requiring to be underpinned by the latter to fulfil its purpose over and above physical survival), I can understand how Hitler came to the conclusion that the Nordic races could, in worldly terms, be described as a superior race. The Jews are God's own 'one off'; I don't think you can contextualize them in normal human terms. On the other hand, because of their higher emotional intelligence, I believe that the sub-Saharan Africans are potentially the most gifted in terms of worldly intelligence. Their physical prowess, contrary to popular belief and without reference to race, does nothing to detract from such a claim. Speaking as a 'titch' and with letters only in front of my surname, I have to admit that people with a higher worldly intelligence are generally above average size. Anyway, the point - my first point - is this. The demise of the Nazi dream was an object lesson, therefore, in God's marked propensity for 'scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts', as per Our Lady's Magnificat. All our gifts are gifts from God, just like life itself. Drawing order out of chaos, a gift with which the German people seem to have been richly blessed, and to which they direct their focus, while providing great personal commitment, is both a duty and a gift - like all the virtues. How bizarre then, and very sad for the many good German who would have had scant choice under that barbaric totalitarian regime of opting out of colluding in Hitler' agenda. How tragic that the monied leading class of such a rational people should, in short order, have yielded absolute power to a raving megalomaniac: a kind of demigod of chaos! An astonishing, absolutely pivotal truth, of which one sees scant mention, is that Hitler actually EXPRESSLY and VERY VOCALLY endorsed barbarity as a quality the German people should covet and should not feel ashamed of. He saw it as purifying! Well of course it was purifying, though hardly in the way Hitler envisaged. 'The hand that hurt' was indeed 'the hand that healed', since, while the wildly pro-fascist francophone countries had salivated over the prospect of a fascist world prewar and grown old in their sins, postwar, casting themselves as the innocent heroes, the German people were a shriven people, and as a result have been receiving the rewards of 'good and faithful servants', while our immensely corrupt Brightest and Best have done their darnedest to wreck the global economy by polarizing the wealth all too massively into the coffers of a few billionaires. I hope I haven't digressed too widely. Atheism, as you frequently point out, does have a bearing on barbarism and its demonic 'values'.Axel_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

#25 Robert Byers 'Creationism is just another front in a general attack on Christendom. We need a bigger defence with a bigger response and plan to reconquor like when the Spanish had to reconquor Spain for Christendom agains the Moors and so on.' Spot on, Robert. I don't think half enough is made of the fact that that these atheists are massive under-achievers in the history of the great pioneer physics, who batten on to the science discovered by believers in God and Satan parasitically and without the least semblance of shame. Indeed, it seems to go completely over their heads. The vapidity of their lobbying can be gauged by their intended palliative concerning the accident at Fukushima, to the effect that bananas have potassium in them - as if th problem of clean, safe power could be generated by banana-fuelled power plants.Axel_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

#16 REC Mr Waldman is clearly, himself, an imbecile. What was good enough for Newton, Kepler, Galieleo, Von Neumann, Godel, Lemaitre, and a host of other stellar names in the firmament of great pioneering paradigm-changers of science, is good enough for Dr Carson, but evidently too good, to be even comprehensible to you, atheists, who are endemically of the ostrich persuasion. You are a tiny, highly aberrant band of hireling cultists, not theoretical physicists or metaphysicians.Axel_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

#7 Don't leave it at that. Go after them bald-headed. Ask them why they haven't refuted your assertion concerning DNA's annihilation of macro evolution. I'm trying to chase everyone up, because we have the arsenal to destroy their hegemonic authority. It's the strategy that's ineffective, as Mapou has indicated.Axel_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD,
What about critical thinking regarding dark matter/energy/multiverse etc? Science is full of fanciful examples that do not even pass the most basic of null hypotheses.
I don't understand what you mean by "passing a null hypothesis". Could you restate what you mean re: dark matter specifically?daveS_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

#37 addendum That reconciling relationship is not religion. It's based on genuine saving faith. It's not based on anything I could do, but on what God did as initiator, on His character, on His will. It's a true love relationship, unlike anything we could understand in human terms. Because He has loved us even despite our rebellious attitude against Him. He doesn't change what I do, but what I want to do. He doesn't make bad people good, but He makes spiritually dead people alive.Dionisio_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

# 11. And you Daniel, are to metaphysics, what carpentry is to origami.Axel_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

What about critical thinking regarding dark matter/energy/multiverse etc? Science is full of fanciful examples that do not even pass the most basic of null hypotheses. And the name of science has never been used for evil? What was the master race that Hitler wanted to create based on? Was it not superiority of a race I.e advancement of natural selection principles? What about 100s of years learning about anatomy and medical experiments that now days would be deemed massively inhumane and torturous? You cannot use the argument that because bad or wrong things were done in the name of something that this thing becomes completely invalidated. If you take that route pretty much everything in life is invalidated.Dr JDD_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

News has a point; why should I care what any American president believes about “evolution”? However, I do care what he/she thinks about value of individual human being and where does that value come from. Peter Singer for President? Anyone?inunison_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Hypocrisy thy name is daveSbornagain77_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Really? Can you use your ‘critical thinking skills’ to show us exactly how intelligence was not necessary to create your brain?
No. Can you show that under GR and QM, the planet Mercury orbits the Earth? Because that's just as relevant to the OP as your post. I won't respond to additional off-topic deflections.daveS_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Cabal @32
Religions have to a great extend been used for ...
Yes, some religious people from Europe imposed their ways on many aboriginal inhabitants in many parts of the world many years ago. Very religious people from the Roman church imposed their views on many parts of Europe. But much earlier, very religious people put Christ on a cross to bleed for those same zealots who did it, for you and for me. He wants a reconciling relationship with us, but doesn't impose it on us. It's up to each of us to either accept His gracious offer of true life, or keep proudly singing Frank Sinatra's song "My way" forever separated from His glory.Dionisio_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

"I have a hard time understanding how someone as successful in a highly technical field as Carson is could be so lacking in critical thinking skills." Really? and can you, as an atheist who does not believe in God, or does not even believe in your own mind for that matter, use your 'critical thinking skills' to show us exactly how intelligence was not necessary to create your brain?
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/ "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Dr. Ben Carson - on the staggering complexity of a single action in the brain - video (2:15 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdo6rT064KA
bornagain77_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

KF,
Dr Carson has in fact in brief alluded to some of the difficulties of solar system formation models, relative to the distribution of angular momentum. Such is an issue, and in fact, confident manner to the contrary, there is no established, demonstrated to be empirically reliable theory of spontaneous solar system formation.
But it does not refute the Big Bang theory, as Dr Carson claims. If it did, clearly the astrophysicists would have picked up on this already. But apparently Carson thinks the astrophysicists are not smart enough to have come up with his clever "proof". I have a hard time understanding how someone as successful in a highly technical field as Carson is could be so lacking in critical thinking skills.daveS_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

This is not about whether someone is fit to be president because they accept or reject a scientific theory or overarching view. That is the superficial point. The real point is the subtle one that pervades as demonstrated here: it is unexpected abd unassumed that anyone intelligent could reject evolution and believe in spiritual beings. That is the bottom line that seeps out from this statement. That is why the battle is rarely won when discussing these things - rejection of evolution coupled with any supernatural belief leads to instant classification of such an individual as unintelligent. It's a pretty good method to silencing your opponents on that matter.Dr JDD_{September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply