Darwin’s fossils freak out over ID in Brazil

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 26, 2019

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

Marcos Eberlin got their goat, we don’t doubt. Open access:

From the Final Remarks: Science, as a process, starts with the acceptance of our ignorance about a natural phenomenon and by seeking natural explanations for it. Hence, ignorance drives the engine of Science. Even if evolution were, hypothetically, rejected, contested by new data, scientists would have to study hard to find an alternative natural explanation that was able to explain everything that evolution explains today plus the new data that contested it.
Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory. It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000). This says nothing about whether God created or did not create the world, as science is unable to distinguish a divinely guided evolution from a materialistic evolution. God may well have created the biological world through natural selection, mutation, speciation, extinction, etc. Still, evolution and Science would remain unscathed as Science is not concerned with why or who, but only with how.
Some creationists say that we must bring the evolution versus creationist debate to the classroom and claim that the opposition to the debate is anti-scientific. However, science is not about blind criticism (Meyer and El-Hani, 2013). Blind criticism is just as naïve as blind acceptance. Scientists must weigh the evidence before questioning a theory. The idea that all debates are equally scientific is misleading and it explains the sad emergence of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. A debate on what is the shape of our planet is not only pointless, but it is also dangerously harmful to the minds of the young students. A fruitful debate in a science class is restricted to those issues that lie within the scientific realm (Baltzley, 2016, Branch, 2016).
A recent study has suggested that science concepts, more than evolutionary basics, are critical to promoting evolution (Dunk et al., 2017). One way to reinforce these fundamentals would be the requirement of evolution and science fundaments in admission policies for biology professionals, particularly teachers (Larkin and Perry-Ryder, 2015; see Rutledge and Warden, 2000 for statistics). Claudia A.M. Russo and Thiago André, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Print version ISSN 1415-4757On-line version ISSN 1678-4685 Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.42 no.1 Ribeirão Preto Jan./Mar. 2019 Epub Feb 28, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2018-0086 More.

It’s those orchids, right? We always said, in the Uncommon Descent News virtual coffee room, it was those orchids that did in Darwin in Brazil. Oh yes, and Marcos Eberlin, of course.

See also: Jerry Coyne is already mad at Marcos Eberlin

and

Marcos Eberlin shouldn’t exist/

Comments

Hi Claudia and welcome! Hopefully I will learn from your area of expertise. “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time.” I’m down with that but this is hardly controversial is it? Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

SA
So the cockroach I see here is strangely similar to the cockroach my neighbor just saw. They both have six legs. And they both die when coming into contact with certain pesticides. That said something about evolution?
But the speed with which they can become pesticide resistant does https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/cockroaches-can-quickly-develop-a-resistance-to-insecticides-study-finds/ampBrother Brian_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

BB
I am perfectly honest in stating that Ms. Russo debating people like ET, BS77 and KF will be very informative and educational.
That is good and unless information and education are bad things, that sounds like a very positive result from the discussions here on UD.Silver Asiatic_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Claudia
I am Claudia Russo, author of the paper cited above. I am very happy to be able to join this discussion. I am certain we will be able to maintain a debate that will be beneficial for all of us.
Greetings, welcome and thank you for joining! (I should have said that sooner). We take a somewhat oppositional view here towards Darwinian theory, but I hope you'll know that your participation is very much appreciated.Silver Asiatic_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

SA
Thank you. Unless you’re being sarcastic and saying that the discussion will not be informative and educational.
Nope. I am perfectly honest in stating that Ms. Russo debating people like ET, BS77 and KF will be very informative and educational.Brother Brian_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

CDR
How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in? The answer is that the pesticide was tested in roaches that share common ancestors (and thus characteristics) with the roaches in your place. If it worked in the lab it will work in your place.
Yes. Why do cockroaches have 6 legs? Because they breed with each other and are part of a species of common ancestry. So the cockroach I see here is strangely similar to the cockroach my neighbor just saw. They both have six legs. And they both die when coming into contact with certain pesticides. That said something about evolution?Silver Asiatic_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

CDR
“The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time”
Every time a baby is born, the human population changes. So that's evolution? So evolutionary theory predicts that populations will change over time? Again, living organisms change every second, obviously any population of organisms will change. If that's the theory, it doesn't say much for the science of evolution.Silver Asiatic_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

BB
If people like ET, KF, WJM, BS77, Andrew and SA make any attempts to seriously discuss the issue of evolution with you, this should be very informative and educational.
Thank you. Unless you're being sarcastic and saying that the discussion will not be informative and educational. But if not sarcastic, then yes. I always find discussions on this site extremely educational, thanks in a large part to the people you identified above (myself excluded). It is good to see you validate and praise the same.Silver Asiatic_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

The Meanings of Evolution by Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas Excerpt: Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms. Let us unpack these six definitions of evolution.,,, http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf
bornagain77_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

"over time" And the more I think about it, the more "over time" sounds like an awful lot like poetry to me. As opposed to what? "Over lunch"? Andrewasauber_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Welcome to UD Ms. Russo. I am sure that you will receive the same civil and professional welcome that I and others have received here. If people like ET, KF, WJM, BS77, Andrew and SA make any attempts to seriously discuss the issue of evolution with you, this should be very informative and educational.Brother Brian_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

"The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time" Hello Claudia, The problem with this definition is that it's too general. I think it needs to be more specific to be be considered a scientific definition. Not all changes are the same or are the result of the same process. Population is too general also. We need specifics as to who makes up the population and why. I don't think the science starts with "any changes in any group." It takes little to no science to generalize. Andrew P.S. and "time". How much time?asauber_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Not sure I get your point, @Robert. @ET. Materialistic evolution does make predictions for all characteristics and all organisms. Each new genome sequenced is a test of evolutionary theory, each new phylogeny reconstructed is also a test. How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in? The answer is that the pesticide was tested in roaches that share common ancestors (and thus characteristics) with the roaches in your place. If it worked in the lab it will work in your place. Best, ClaudiaClaudia Darwin Russo_{July 3, 2019
July
07
Jul
3
03
2019
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

"You can't have your cake and eat it too." "The cake is a lie." "I'm doing science and I'm still alive."Robert Sheldon_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Hello All, I am Claudia Russo, author of the paper cited above. I am very happy to be able to join this discussion. I am certain we will be able to maintain a debate that will be beneficial for all of us. Hello @ET! The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time. What would be your definition?Claudia Darwin Russo_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory.
That is a lie.
It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000).
That is also a lie, unless you want to restrict the definition of "evolution" to mere change within a population over time.
This says nothing about whether God created or did not create the world, as science is unable to distinguish a divinely guided evolution from a materialistic evolution.
Of course science can determine natural from artificial. Materialistic evolution doesn't make any predictions and doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, and it has to be given starting populations of bacteria. Materialistic evolution has not helped us to find any new cures nor has it advanced our understanding of biology.
Still, evolution and Science would remain unscathed as Science is not concerned with why or who, but only with how.
And yet forensic science and archaeology refute that nonsense. And materialistic evolution isn't close to determining the how. Materialistic evolution is a total failure.ET_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

From the abstract, they claim:
"In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail,"
Aside for the fact that evolutionists can't even demonstrate the origin of a single protein and/or gene, (which is arguably the smallest detail to be explained in biology), the science of biology itself can get along quite well without Darwinian presuppositions. To repeat what I posted a few days ago,,, As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005
Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).
Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs, yet in an article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.
“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
Again, the science of Biology itself owes nothing to Darwinian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution is simply a metaphysical belief, i.e. atheistic materialism, that is, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to in the preceding article, added onto, even forced onto, biological discoveries as a ‘narrative gloss’ after the discovery was made. At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:
Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Jonathan Wells weigh in here:
Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell: Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/
Ann Gauger weighs in here:
Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger – Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin
In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with the science of Biology, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is not even on the correct theoretical, i.e. metaphysical, foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (27:15 minute mark, how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology) https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1634
By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether a hypothesis is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
The main reason that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science is that, although falsification is considered the gold standard to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, Darwinists themselves simply refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory: As Karl Popper stated, “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.”
“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
Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Moreover, since science itself was born out of the Christian worldview itself, by men who were, by and large, devoutly Christian in their beliefs, then Christians certainly have nothing to fear from all the bluff and bluster coming from Darwinists, (i.e. from their false claim that only their worldview is the supposed ‘scientific’ worldview, and that Christianity is a anti-scientific myth). The reality of the situation turns out to be quite the opposite from what Darwinists constantly try to portray to the general public. The reality of the situation is that, as shocking a it may be for some people to hear, Christianity is the scientific worldview and Darwinian evolution is the anti-scientific myth!
The Importance of the Warfare Thesis – Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics – July 26, 2015 Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought. Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,, Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely. Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science. http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....logos.html Christians – Not the Enlightenment – Invented Modern Science – Chuck Colson – Oct. 2016 Excerpt: Rodney Stark’s,,, book, “For the Glory of God,,,, In Stark’s words, “Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science.” Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy. That’s because Christianity depicted God as a “rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being” who created a universe with a “rational, lawful, stable” structure. These beliefs uniquely led to “faith in the possibility of science.” So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, “the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack of faith.” Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I’ve mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as “liberators” of the human mind and spirit. Well, it’s up to us to set the record straight, and Stark’s book is a great place to start. And I think it’s time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong. – per cns news
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Before we discuss evolution you must tell me something you know. Not something you heard, or something you read in a book, or something you are commanded to believe. You must tell me an observable fact, something you can point to and say "That is evolution." After all, the first step in the scientific method is "Observe something." And don't try to change the subject to "evidence". Evidence only applies if you first assume that your subject is real and testable.SmartAZ_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

OK again, don’t understand the title of this op but Was a much better read then the dna downhill op and I’m starting to like Marcus EberlinAaronS1978_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply