Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

arroba 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!

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
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
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
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. KF kairosfocus
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
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. KF kairosfocus
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
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
Evolutionism isn’t science.
Evolution is a scientific theory. “Evolutionism”? I don’t even know what that is. sean s. sean samis
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
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
sean samis:
Abandoning proper science and reason is a direct threat to the survival of the US.
Evolutionism isn't science. Virgil Cain
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 . . . KF kairosfocus
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
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
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
#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
#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
#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
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
#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
# 11. And you Daniel, are to metaphysics, what carpentry is to origami. Axel
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
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
Hypocrisy thy name is daveS bornagain77
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
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
"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
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
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
KF @29 Well written. Very good points. Very timely the interesting reminder about the WR movement. Thank you. Dionisio
Thus since Atheists deny the reality of Good and Evil altogether, and yet the argument from evil requires an objective standard of good that has been departed from in its premises, then the ‘argument from evil’ collapses in on itself: My interpretation of the "fall" is quite different: Man should not take it upon himself to judge in terms of good vs. evil in himself. "God" created man the way he should be and the privilege of judgment was not bestowed upon us. Because "they" ("Adam and Eve") decided to "eat of the tree of good and evil" , that is, to take it on their own shoulders to judge what's good or bad in themselves (seems like the creation of a moralistic way of thought; a codex of morals). The moral code already is where it should be. It is part of the process of growing up to acquire its proper integration, programming in our psyche, as pathways for behavior. All our behavior is determined by pathways of energy. If the energy is diverted from it's natural path by being forced onto aberrant pathways formed by bad experienced (like early in life being punished for exhibiton, "shameless behavior" like running naked in the living room, to the embarassment of concerned parents, resulting in punishment. The memory of punishment may fade, but the "lesson learned" stays there for the rest of his life - so when called upon to deliver a speech he stammers and stotters because "showing off" is shameful. Instead of floating freely along the path of least resistance, the energy is diverted through a "moral filter". The physical nakedness is imprinted and remains as a pendant to "spiritual nakedness". Moral judgement is a burden on our shoulders. Religions have to a great extend been used for that purpose. A population bogged down in guilt is easier to manipulate. Cabal
On the problem of evil, post Plantinga and Boethius: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_gdvsevl kairosfocus
Funny that Atheists don't believe that God, the Devil, or even good or evil, exist but, none-the-less, have no trouble whatsoever regularly using the argument from evil as if it is irrefutable proof against the existence of God.
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - “Inside The Human Genome - A Case for Non-Intelligent Design" http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html
Dr. Hunter adds
"There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way."
The main problem with the ‘argument from evil’ for atheists is that the argument from evil collapses in on itself.
Student (Albert Einstein) Vs. Professor – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3qjDF9ksJU
,,,as the preceding video clearly shows, evil cannot exist without an objective standard of good that has been departed from. Thus the ‘argument from evil’ presupposes, as an axiom in its premises, an objective standard of ‘good' that has been departed from. Yet, at the same time Atheistic materialism denies the reality of Good and Evil altogether.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Thus since Atheists deny the reality of Good and Evil altogether, and yet the argument from evil requires an objective standard of good that has been departed from in its premises, then the 'argument from evil' collapses in on itself:
“The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,, The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,, Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159
The unbridled hubris of the atheistic mindset in these matters is really quite astonishing. Although Dawkins denies the reality of good and evil altogether, check out Dawkins’ pride in himself as he condemns God as morally evil at the beginning of the following video:
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
I guess good and evil only exist for atheists when they are presupposing that they are morally superior to God? Of supplemental note:
The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009 Excerpt: What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil If God, Why Evil? (1 of 4) – Norm Geisler – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSTzJ-kbfkc
Folks, I see, above, a snide dismissal of the possibility of a devil. Perhaps, the White Rose Martyrs, from that same central european country, can tell us a few things about the matter, in their tracts that cost them their lives:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
Given a long, sad and evidently unfinished history of significant political leaders who have manifested destructive mesmerising deception and Nero-like demonically murderous violence or enabling of such, we need to pay these paid- for- in- blood- and- tears words very careful heed. Further to this, in recent weeks, the issue of the mass slaughter of is it 58 million American babies since 1973 has been forcefully put on the table in the context of the demonstrated pattern of the cutting up of these little boys and girls and selling their organs for tainted medical research all too reminiscent of Dr Mengele and co at Auschwitz. Research indicates that the global total at the same time is of order many hundreds of millions, altogether forming a mass global holocaust of the most innocent and voiceless among us, the worst in history. The major media voices, with scarce few exceptions, are implicated in at minimum enabling behaviour. The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad you will be full of darkness. If the imagined light in you is darkness, how great is your darkness. I ask: who said that, on what occasion, as recorded in what piece of literature. And, how is this connected to Dr Carson? In the case of Dr Carson, we have a man who instead of enabling the imagined light that is instead destructive darkness, dedicated himself to saving lives of children, improving their health and life prospects, and in so doing became a world class pioneer in neurosurgery, one of the most difficult facets of medicine. A professional discipline steeped in knowledge and skill in many linked scientific domains. Where the patent fact is, for many many areas of its praxis, macro-evolutionary theory, despite many assertions to the contrary, has proved utterly irrelevant. Save, that the events of Dr Mengele and co are connected with a drastic breakdown of ethics tied to the ways in which evolutionary materialist ideology and its fellow travellers, dressed up in lab coats, seized control of institutions and the imaginations of the elites from the late C19 on. Dr Carson, by his life, has shown us through example that a seventh day adventist and it seems young earth creationist, can successfully practice deeply scientific fields at the highest level. (BTW, I am not such an adventist.) He has shown how the ethics of the gospel move one to save life. He has shown how members of races of even imagined genetically inferior IQ and from very deprived circumstances can through vision, determination and parental input (imagine, an illiterate demanding regular book reports and using that to spark educational transformation) rise to the very highest levels despite obstacles. He has shown that such a person, in retirement, can stand up in the face of a civilisation headed over the cliff and say, there is a better way, come let us turn back before it is too late. And what is the reaction of the jaded, sophisticated, sneering media elites? Oh, he says sibboleth, not shibboleth, let us destroy him as he is a threat to our agendas. For shame! GEM of TKI PS: Oddly, just last evening (while substituting for a substantive tutor) I was demonstrating to local physics students roughly comparable to freshmen, angular momentum conservation. 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. Again, this highlights a common failure to give a balanced view of strengths and limitations of science and science education. And in particular the tendencies to ignore the vera causa principle and to treat models as though they were facts. kairosfocus
beau @26
interestingly enough all but two have been believers
believers in what? Most (perhaps all) people believe in something. Even atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that the available evidence is insufficient for them to convince them one way or another. Many believe in pantheism, reincarnation, rebirth, karma. Monotheistic beliefs are different too. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. They believe that He became flesh and died on a cross for the forgiveness of our sins. They believe that He was resurrected and lives and makes spiritually dead people alive, according to His will and for His glory. However, perhaps you meant that some of your doctors are not atheists? Dionisio
tjguy @25
It is very important to clarify what is meant by that word, otherwise your opponent can explain it in terms that make you look like a fool for rejecting it.
Yes, agree. Unfortunately these days words lack meaning in many cases. Just note "omg" said everywhere for anything. "wow!", "absolutely!", "i love this, i love that", "perfect", "amazing!", etc. Anything means everything or nothing, it doesn't matter anyway. It's pathetic. Really heartbreaking sad. Welcome to this world! Years ago I was in my office trying to fix software bugs reported by the users to our tech support guys, who wrote tickets that were assigned to the programmers. One of the bug reports did not include the dataset required to reproduce the problem, hence I emailed the tech support guy to provide the dataset. However, since the guy didn't respond, I went to the guy's office in another area of the building to ask him about the dataset. Two of his tech support colleagues were in his office talking, because it was during their break time. When I was leaving his office, the tech support guy asked me to stay for a moment to answer a question about their discussion. Another guy asked me: "what's the opposite of love?" to what I responded: "what do you mean by 'love'?" My question made them upset. They told me to respond without asking questions. I told them I wanted to respond their question as accurately as I could, therefore I wanted to know what exactly they were asking me. Was it about 'love' like in 'i love chocolate' or 'I love my children'. The former is related to liking what chocolate does to me, whereas the latter case was about wanting good for my children regardless of what they do to me. Conditional vs. unconditional. Well, they didn't like it, they asked me to get out of their office. Later when they saw me in the hallways they mocked me and made fun of my questions. Dionisio
I have a wide variety of diseases and ailments so i get to see many in thr medical field. I've been asking doctors if knowledge of evolution had any value to their practice, so far they've all said no. Some seemed insulted that i even implied that it could, interestingly enough all but two have been believers. beau
Dionisio @24
Perhaps next time Dr. Carson should answer the ‘evolution’ question by asking the questioners what do they mean by that ‘e’ word?
Exactly! It is very important to clarify what is meant by that word, otherwise your opponent can explain it in terms that make you look like a fool for rejecting it. News asks:
"Who cares what any American president believes about “evolution”? "
Actually, I think I do care what a President believes about evolution. If he is a gung ho evolutionist - a Materialist - I would be concerned - very concerned! I certainly do not think a belief in evolution is a requirement for the Presidency. He can do his job fine without such a belief. Again, he needs to clarify it is macro, not micro evolution that he does not believe in. tjguy
News @8
Who cares what any American president believes about “evolution”?
That's an interesting question. KF has written extensively on the following topic, but I want to bring it up again here at this point. In the 1930s an allegedly 'civilized' nation in central Europe accepted as valid (with some exceptions among their people) a philosophical worldview position based on the concept of "superior race", among other things. Today many people know (more or less) the consequences derived from that horrible historical decision. Basically, in Russian language the word that means "good" sounds like "horror show". Well, about half century after that horrendous decision by a blinded nation to self-proclaim themselves a "superior race", attack their neighbors and exterminate the "inferior" people, the world witnessed this remarkable medical operation performed by a very dedicated team of talented doctors and other medical personnel, that included, in a leading position, a talented neurosurgeon with a skin pigmentation that would disqualify him from the 1930s German "superior race" society. Wait a minute. Are we saying that an allegedly "inferior race" "sub-person" was allowed to perform a most delicate and difficult surgery on two children of the allegedly "superior nation" by the explicitly expressed request of talented medical doctors of the allegedly "superior nation"? What? Say it again? I have the impression that Dr. Carson strongly believes in the dignity of any human life. Now, please tell me, where does that strong belief comes from in Dr. Carson's case? Definitely not from the "superiority" philosophy that caused so much death and suffering in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Perhaps next time Dr. Carson should answer the 'evolution' question by asking the questioners what do they mean by that 'e' word? Do they mean the built-in adaptation mechanisms embedded within the biological systems, which explain the Galapagos finch beak variety? Or do they have in mind the pile of obfuscating pseudoscientific nonsense included in the so called "evo-devo" literature, that can't answer the basic question "where's the beef?" as indicated multiple times in the "third way to evolution" discussion thread in this website? I'd rather see Dr Carson use his talent and influence in telling the Good News to this lost and perishing world, because he seems to know where true wisdom comes from. But if he runs for POTUS, then at least he seems to recognize himself as a forgiven sinner and he seems to understand where true wisdom comes from. As long as he keeps trusting his Redeemer for every decision he makes, then integrity will be an expected virtue, hence we will have less probabilities of seeing the POTUS involved in controversial personal affairs. Now, regarding that famous surgery related to Dr Carson and the German twins, why did that have to happen? Well, the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems during development are very delicate and many things can go wrong during those processes. I don't know exactly why that happened. But I know this:
As He [Jesus] passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” [John 9:1-5 (ESV)]
Commentary from Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier Ministries:
9:2 who sinned. Many Jews, like Job’s friends, believed that every temporal misfortune was God’s punishment for some specific sin. With a congenital affliction the explanation could be that the sin had been committed in the womb, or by the parents whose sinful act victimized their child. Jesus dismisses these as improper explanations (v. 3), but this is not to say that certain trials are not the God-ordained punishment for certain sins (e.g., the life of David after His adultery and murder, 2 Sam. 12–21). Neither does Jesus here dismiss the biblical doctrine of original sin (Rom. 5:12–21), which teaches that all suffering is the consequence of our corporate sin and rebellion in Adam. But it is unwise and uncharitable to judge that the sufferings of others are specifically punitive (Matt. 7:1). The question put to Jesus presents a false dilemma. Only two possibilities were given as reasons for the man’s affliction, his own sin or the sin of his parents. Jesus offers a third option (v. 3). 9:3 that the works of God might be displayed. Some of our sufferings, like the trials of Job, are for God’s glory, either through our resulting refinement or through a spectacular healing as in the present case. God’s purpose is not always presently known to us, but we have God’s assurance that His purpose is good (Rom. 8:28).
Here's part of the story that made Dr. Carson so famous:
In 1987, Ben Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins (the Binder twins) conjoined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). Operations to separate twins joined in this way had always failed, resulting in the death of one or both of the infants. Carson agreed to undertake the operation. The 50-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently. As Carson said in an interview:
I was talking to a friend of mine, who was a cardiothoracic surgeon, who was the chief of the division, and I said, "You guys operate on the heart in babies, how do you keep them from exsanguinating" and he says, "Well, we put them in hypothermic arrest." I said, "Is there any reason that -- if we were doing a set of Siamese twins that were joined at the head -- that we couldn't put them into hypothermic arrest, at the appropriate time, when we're likely to lose a lot of blood?" and he said, "No." I said, "Wow, this is great." Then I said, "Why am I putting my time into this? I'm not going to see any Siamese twins." So I kind of forgot about it, and lo and behold, two months later, along came these doctors from Germany, presenting this case of Siamese twins. And, I was asked for my opinion, and I then began to explain the techniques that should be used, and how we would incorporate hypothermic arrest, and everybody said "Wow! That sounds like it might work." And, my colleagues and I, a few of us went over to Germany. We looked at the twins. We actually put in scalp expanders, and five months later we brought them over and did the operation, and lo and behold, it worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins#
Twins Separated by Surgery Ready to Go Home to Germany April 06, 1988|ERIC LICHTBLAU | Times Staff Writer BALTIMORE, Md. — Benjamin and Patrick Binder, the Siamese twins who were born joined at the head and then separated in an unprecedented surgical marathon seven months ago, will be released from the hospital this week to begin what doctors hope will eventually be normal lives, officials said Tuesday. The 14-month-old boys, who will return to their native West Germany with their parents, still face challenges to develop their speech and motor skills, vision and mental capacities. "Neither child at this point is normal," said Dr. Mark Rogers of Johns Hopkins Hospital here, where the surgery was performed. Both boys have "the potential for a normal existence," Dr. Benjamin Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, said at a press conference. A Marvel to Doctors Doctors who took part in the pioneering 22-hour operation last Labor Day weekend marveled that the brothers--initially given just a 50-50 chance of survival--are alive and progressing well. They called their development remarkable. Only one in 2 million live births is of twins joined at the head. Several have been surgically separated, but never before had physicians successfully separated twins who shared major blood systems in the brain. The Binder babies were brought to Baltimore for the delicate procedure after their German physician contacted Rogers at Johns Hopkins, which has a highly regarded pediatric neurosurgery unit. To carry out the task, a team of 70 specialists lowered the twins' body temperatures to slow the bleeding and then separated the blood vessels at the backs of the boys' heads. They used portions of the pericardium, the tissue that covers the heart, to graft new vessels and transplanted skin and back muscle to reconstruct the skulls. Most Complex Case "It's an extraordinary feat . . . just that the children are alive and going home," Rogers said. He added that he has never seen a case as complex or challenging among the 10,000 children he has treated. The Binder boys left intensive care in November and are considered to be in stable condition. Each weighs between 25 and 30 pounds. Their mother, Theresia Binder, 21, is "excited" but also "nervous (and) anxious" about her sons' return home to Ulm, West Germany, Rogers said. She has visited the boys daily and occasionally has been able to take them out in a stroller. She and her husband, Josef, a factory worker, have sold exclusive rights to the twins' story to a West German magazine and did not appear at the press conference. The doctors said that neither Benjamin nor Patrick can walk or crawl and they are behind in verbal development, but have shown improvement. Further Treatment Set Benjamin has progressed more rapidly than Patrick, who suffered a setback and was temporarily returned to intensive care several weeks ago after he stopped breathing for about a minute. Benjamin will return directly home but Patrick will be treated for a short time at a West German hospital for a "reflux" condition, which causes stomach contents to back up into the esophagus. Dottie Lappe, head nurse in pediatric intensive care at Johns Hopkins, said that "everybody's going to miss them" at the hospital. Rogers agreed, saying: "We have a tremendous amount of emotional investment (in the children). . . . We had to care for them as physicians and care for them as human beings." That care also has meant a substantial financial investment for the hospital and others. Rogers said the hospital has picked up most of the medical expenses, estimated at $800,000, with some help from the German government. The physicians volunteered their services. http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-06/news/mn-521_1_return-home
Don't vote for me. I'm the nut on the internet. Mapou
So....a question for UD and News. If Mapou were running for president of the USA, would his views be worth blogging on? REC
And by the by. Satan is not that particular alien's name. Satan really means the accuser or adversary. His real name is Morning Star or, as given in Latin by the Church of Rome, Lucifer. He's full of hate against both humans and the hosts of Yahweh. Yahweh is the big Kahuna of all the aliens. He claimed to have been the first one and that all the others, including other aliens and humans, came long after. But not before Yahweh of Hosts had a technological singularity of sorts from which the universe was born. That was the Big Daddy of all singularities. LOL. You see, we Christians, we have stories to tell you about aliens. Besides, they're right here. And they've been here long before we showed up. We are the late comers in this part of the Galaxy. What are they doing here? Glad you ask. They engineered the Solar system, terraformed the earth and seeded it with living organisms in order to conduct a grand experiment, one that is still ongoing. And guess what? We are the subject of the experiment. Like I said, we got alien stories to tell. Grand stories. Mapou
Any putdown of a believer in creationism is a putdown of all believers now and in the past. The great majority have no problem with disbelief in evolution and belief in God/Christ/genesis. Its only a problem for a minority and the present wicked establishment. Yes I think they are wicked but they always were in human history. Nothing personal. nobody votes on this anyways Evolutionism is a rejection of the bible and Christianity for many. FINE. BUT don't deny you are attacking and starting hostilities. 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. Robert Byers
You see, Christians and Jews are light years ahead of the dirt worshippers when it comes to alien expertise. They even know many of them by name.
O____O daveS
“The resolution came somewhere along the way for Carson: Satan. Evolution is Satan’s doing.” I can respect Dr Carson, who has lived such an admirable and brilliant life with so many accomplishments. However it is a sad and disturbing aspect of our times that the scientific views of a neurosurgeon could be swayed by an argument rooted in the supposed existence of an atavistic embodiment of evil, Satan.
Personally, I admire Carson's willingness to stand up to the abuse that everyone knew would come. Not that I agree with him on any issue but I must acknowledge that this takes a high level of gonads. I do take issue with your calling Satan "an atavistic embodiment of evil." Satan is no less plausible than Carl Sagan's beloved aliens. You see, Christians and Jews are light years ahead of the dirt worshippers when it comes to alien expertise. They even know many of them by name. Mapou
"The resolution came somewhere along the way for Carson: Satan. Evolution is Satan’s doing." I can respect Dr Carson, who has lived such an admirable and brilliant life with so many accomplishments. However it is a sad and disturbing aspect of our times that the scientific views of a neurosurgeon could be swayed by an argument rooted in the supposed existence of an atavistic embodiment of evil, Satan. leenibus
I don't know what Media Matters is, but I read this article at The Week: http://theweek.com/articles/578765/how-ben-carson-both-incredibly-smart-spectacularly-stupid Which 'News' has cited (with approval?) in the past: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/peter-weber-at-the-week-america-doesnt-trust-its-experts-anymore/ I guess it is easier for News to claim something is from what she sees as some liberal trash than that it is perhaps legitimate criticism from an online magazine with fairly diverse views. REC
He thinks he’s refuted the Big Bang, when in fact he has simply revealed his ignorance of freshman physics. And yet he is so confident, he gives speeches about this stuff! That’s not what I look for in a president.
Carson's understanding of the physics of the universe is no worse than that of famous physicists such as Hawking. Hawking believes in the possibility of time travel, for crying out loud! This is a man who still uses "continuous fields" physics even though any moron walking down the street can figure out that the universe is necessarily discrete. Mapou
Here's one for the books. I came across it on a webpage about the collapse of the WTC towers: As Lord Kelvin said, “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.” http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html How richly that applies to evolution. Feel free to us this were every appropriate. Peter
Who cares what any American president believes about “evolution”?
It's not simply his views on evolution and other topics, but rather the horribly muddled reasoning he uses to arrive at these views. For example, discussing the Big Bang:
You know, you’ve got this mass bending and then it explodes. In physics, we have something we call “angular momentum,” and it is preserved, so it should be preserved in any orbit of anything that is affected by gravity around a planet, which means everything has to traverse in the same direction. Well, it doesn’t! There are many planets that have satellites and moons that go in opposite directions. So that doesn’t work with angular momentum!
He thinks he's refuted the Big Bang, when in fact he has simply revealed his ignorance of freshman physics. And yet he is so confident, he gives speeches about this stuff! That's not what I look for in a president. daveS
Daniel King at 11, give it a rest. I have been at many graduations. Engineers, yes, carpenters, no. Why do all surgeons Rise, Doctor of Medicine? Don't write back, I don't care, unless you are prepared to swear you are not paid by the Darwin lobby or some political campaign. News
Surgery is to science what carpentry is to engineering. Daniel King
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.
I remember sitting through a "Chordate Morphology" class, hoping to see how the fossil record "all fits together," and then having the class finish-----with nothing "fitting together." This was years ago; but I'm rather sure nothing has appreciably changed since then. I scratched my head at the time, thought I must have missed something, and went on, convinced that surely, somewhere, there was an answer. When I got around to really looking for it---after reading parts of the Origin, and then Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," I found that there was, in the end, NO answer. Nothing fit together. Just wild, loose ends, held together by a narrative that was clearly contradicted by the facts. That evolution is, in so many ways, a 'lie' parading itself as the 'truth,' well, yes, you could look at it as "Satan's doings." But, this said, I would still prefer it if Ben Carson simply said that evolution was bad science. That's a much easier proposition to test. I don't see this, though, as disqualifying him as a presidential candidate. PaV
daveS, what difference does it make to dirt worshippers whether or not I'm voting? Mapou
Who cares what any American president believes about "evolution"? News
Evolution can be proven false with just 3 letters: DNA. Anyone that doesn't get this is dumb enough to be an evolutionist. Unfortunately there are a lot of them. Peter
You're not voting? daveS
Is that acceptable for the president of a world power?
If I were voting, I'd take Carson over any dirt worshipping president. Carson understands the simple math of combinatorial explosion. Dirt worshippers don't. Mapou
I can't quite figure out Dr Carson. He is clearly a talented physician, but get him talking about evolution or cosmology and he turns into Ken Ham. Looks like a classic case of willful ignorance to me; he should know better. Is that acceptable for the president of a world power? daveS
The wishy washy politicians on all sides who speak on both sides of their mouths (give both God and Darwinism the same regard) do not deserve a pass either. YECs and OECs and others who disagree with their BS should cease the opportunity to ridicule them. In fact, if I were a republican candidate, I would play the God/creation card to the fullest and I would ridicule the dirt worshippers and the ape-wannabes over and over throughout the entire campaign. And I would hire talented cartoonists to do the job. LOL. Mapou
Sean Samis, are you morally certain that you are not paid by a Darwin outfit? News
I am sure that Ben Carson saved some children’s lives. And in his role as a neurosurgeon, I would not care what he thought about evolution. But now he’s running for President of the United States of America; he’s a politician who’s put religion and science into his platform. He willingly exposed himself to criticism and does not deserve a pass because he did good things as a surgeon. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” sean s. sean samis

Leave a Reply