Evolutionist: We do not promote any “spiritual ideologies.”

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 4, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

After our recent reporting on new research out of John Mattick’s lab on how RNA structure conservation suggests that, even according to evolution, yet more of the mammalian genome is functional, lead author Martin Smith informed us that we had it all wrong: read more

Comments

Elizabeth:
The evidence is vast for Universal Common Descent.
The evidence is vast for Universal Common Design. Universal Common Descent can't even be tested as no one knows what makes an organism what it is. And no one knows how many mutations it takes to get a fish-a-pod from a fish- it ain't science. IOW Lizzie is spewing bald assertions again.Joe_{August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Do you even accept that when life originated it started with unicellular life (maybe it happened more than once)or do you think multicellular life somehow sprang into existence without being descended from anything?
There isn't any evidence that demonstrates unicellular organisms can evolve into something other than unicellular organisms. So that would be a huge problem for anyone who accepts universal common descent.Joe_{August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Also, a nice commentary article in the same edition here.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Mung
You want to propose some creature as the common ancestor of all cats and all humans be my guest. Just support your claim with evidence. My belief about “descent” is that in large part evidence is missing where most needed to support the theory.
Try this. Where do you think the important evidence is missing?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

#37 Mung
I’m willing to look at the evidence and form an opinion.
Then why not do it?
I have no idea what constitutes a “very simple life form.”
OK. Let's settle for unicellular. Rephrased:
Do you even accept that when life originated it started with unicellular life (maybe it happened more than once)or do you think multicellular life somehow sprang into existence without being descended from anything?
Mark Frank_{August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

#36 Mark Frank: I don't feel any NEED to have a theory about common descent. I'm willing to look at the evidence and form an opinion.
Do you even accept that when life originated it started with a very simple life form (maybe it happened more than once)or do you think complex life somehow sprang into existence without being descended from anything?
I have no idea what constitutes a "very simple life form." All known life is complex. Any "life" less complex than what we have knowledge of is purely hypothetical. If you think that "simple" means "no god required" and that "complex" means "god required" then you must go with "god required."Mung_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

#34 Mung Do I gather that you don't have a theory about descent? Do you even accept that when life originated it started with a very simple life form (maybe it happened more than once)or do you think complex life somehow sprang into existence without being descended from anything?Mark Frank_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Mung is an old-style creationist, Mark. Sal is too accommodationist for Mung’s liking.
Sal is a young earth creationist, though he has difficulty admitting it at times. I am not. And I don't consider brown-nosing and name-dropping and deleting or changing the text of contrary opinions to be "accommodationist." I consider it evidence of a significant character flaw.Mung_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
#20 Mung What is your belief about descent?
What do you mean by "descent"? I decended from my parents, who descended from tehir parents. My cat, I have no idea who his parents were, but I assume he likewise descended from his parents, and they from theirs. I don't believe if we could trace back my ancestry that we would find a cat as an ancestor and I don't believe if we could trace back the ancestry of my cat that we would find a human as an ancestor. You want to propose some creature as the common ancestor of all cats and all humans be my guest. Just support your claim with evidence. My belief about "descent" is that in large part evidence is missing where most needed to support the theory. It's a grand idea, really, but I am just now starting Darwin's Doubt, and already it's not looking good for poor Darwin.Mung_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

You need to read what’s actually going on the world
First, you suggest that I read more and then you tell me that you do not read.
And by the way, I’ve read very little, indeed, on the subject of economics or evolution.
Thanks for the ad hominems. It never helps one's argument and supports your opponent.jerry_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

I'm glad you said one of the poorer countries in the world, Jerry, because I was going to ask, and who you thought would be the happier? But I expect both would be happy, away from the maniacal, materialist 'ethos' of the modern west world. Jerry, I don't have to be brain-surgeon to see where you're coming from, in terms of your formation. You spell it out loud and clear: the right-wing establishment. And, if you have kept up with what's going on in the world, PARTICULARLY economics, then your opinions are all the more reprehensibly uninformed, or worse, you choose to ignore the truths I enunciated. And by the way, I've read very little, indeed, on the subject of economics or evolution. Just digests by people who have gone 'against the flow', and predicted this economic horror show. Indeed, Keynes, himself, did, predicting that one day, it would come down to a battle between the people and the banks. Still, I regret that you feel hurt by my words, as you seem a sort of innocent in a bad world.Axel_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

You need to read what’s actually going on the world
That is a very arrogant statement. You have no idea what I read. I happen to read quite a bit. More in economics than in evolution and I have read quite a lot on evolution. We will have to continue to disagree. Meanwhile a typical kid of the underclass in some of the poorer countries of the world is walking around in his hand with what would be considered a super-computer 30-35 years ago. And 200 years ago a typical person in Scandinavia would supplement their diet with bark off trees.jerry_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

That's a wonderful expressions, Jerry, 'the wealth of the world'. It reminds me of our being told that, under Blair, (a Thatcherite Labourite!)the country had never been richer! Never mind that the industrial North had been decimated, and much of the South, leaving mutiple generations of unemployed folk in its wake. Monied people buying second homes for holidays, with young people in the villages, whose families had lived there for hundreds of years, become displaced persons, the building of council houses virtually stopped, leaving young couples in the mire. And a crime which cries to heaven for vengeance, young and old of both sexes sleeping rough in great numbers. Unknown in this country after the war. A 'tramp' was an oddity, rarely seen. And this great targeted increase in wealth, in favour of what? Why ever-lower paid service jobs and, the supreme benison: derivatives and casino banking, not to speak of high-streets bereft of most shops, and now lined with charity shops selling second-hand clothes, books and assorted bric-a-brac, farmers 'stiffed' by the supermarkets, genetically-modified starch in baked beans, a staple of us poorer folk, galloping national, indeed, global bankruptcy, a burgeoning police state, and further afield, a toxic radio-active time-bomb in Japan. Not a bad record I suppose. Not. Oh, and that wonderful fracking, of course. I'll leave you with three telling insights of J K Galbraith, senior: 'The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.' 'We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had much.' 'In economics, the majority is always wrong.' As regards the last quote, Jerry, why wouldn't it always be wrong, since the search referred to in the first quote never ceases. Money never sleeps, not do its minions. You need to read what's actually going on the world, Jerry. Keep the text-books for your exams.Axel_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

we don’t yet know if capitalism is the least worst system!
I have a background in business and have studied economics, especially capitalism. I can argue very persuasively that free market capitalism is the only moral way to distribute goods in an economy. Since free market capitalism became popular in Holland and England in the late 18th century, the wealth of the world has increased by about 20 fold. Most capitalism is not free market but the current wealth of the world is mainly due to this type of capitalism. The fact that this site exists is a good example. But this is not a topic for this site.jerry_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

A brief word, again, 5for: Capitalism is simply systematized greed. In sort-term, practical terms, optimal efficiency leads to the immiseration and eventual destitution of the population at large, as we are now witnessing. Truly, God is not mocked. As was mentioned on the theautomaticearth.com, it now seems that we don't yet know if capitalism is the least worst system!Axel_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Your #21, 5for At least in technologically advanced societies, 5for, there are two sets of sets of citizenry.. well, in a sense, three: There are the leaders, the very rich oligarchy and their political and media puppets (who always see the country as being coterminous with their good selves), and there are the people. The third category would be the monied people, the middle class, as it used to be defined, who, from maerial self-interest, are 'de facto' devotees of the billionaire oligarchy. I can't speak for my fellow-Christians on here, though I'm not averse to reproaching them for the madness of their position on regarding economic justice. Doubtless, entertaining an excessive tenderness for rises in the prices of the stocks they hold, are, of course, complicit in this mega Great Depression that seems to have begun for many people. No doubt, they would be exemplars of Christianity to me in other regards. One of the axioms of Christianity is, 'By their fruit, you shall know them.' Well, it is not a close secret, even to Americans, now, that they as a country and a people, are a basket case. It has always been a country steeped in materialism and violence, the trail-blazers in degeneracy. Nevertheless, man for man, probably not actually as wicked as most European countries, in that more was given the latter and more achieved, in terms of the most elementary, Christian social justice; the bitterest irony being that possibly Keir Hardie the founder of the British Labour Party and a Methodist lay-preacher, was probably the last Christian involved in the betterment of the lot of public. The residual Christian ethos, however, supplemented and preserved those gains for only so long, before the Mammon-worshipping backwoodsman of the political right prevailed once again, thanks in considerable part to the media, and large part to their endlessly mendacious propaganda. Thatcher was installed, and proceeded to re-enact the Highland Clearances of the 19th century - only nationwide. The fact is, its chaos in the US, worse than Europe by far. You have innumerable Christian sects, some of dubious Christian identity. And the Catholic church there seems extraordinarily reactionary and Pelagian, as per the Tridentine tradition. The worldly values of many of them being indistinguishable from those of their atheist compatriots. There is even one sect, which, absolutely counter to Jesus' most express and emphatic teachings, claims that wealth is a sign of God's blessing! Put it this way. There is an extraordinary incoherence about the Christian message in the US, as a result of the proliferation of sects and cults of one kind or another, despite the strong adherence to Christ in one way or another, in the Southern States. Francis Bacon remarked that the blessing of the Old testament was prosperity; the blessing of the New Testament, adversity. But he was not quite right in his first claim, as throughout most of the O.T. the wicked man is referred to in apposition to the rich man (often associated with violence, oppression, sharp elbows, worldly ambition, etc; the poor man, to the true Israel - as in Mary's Magnificat, the Beatitudes, Sermon on the Mount, etc. I expect I'm digressing, anyway, but I must rush off for a while. I'll have another look later, to check the coherence or otherwise, of what I've written.Axel_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Isn’t American Christianity heavily represented on the political right?
It's that political alliance (that helped get Bush Junior elected) that concerns observers. Religion is fine and dandy till the zealots demand the rights to indoctrinate kids via public schools and to proselytize in workplaces etc. Let's have genuine freedom of and freedom from religion with a free exchange of ideas.Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Religion drives science and it matters.
Always makes me smile (I occasionally read the comments at Hunter's blog as they can be hilarious). I actually asked Dr Hunter in a comment "which religion" and he responded with "Christianity." which seemed a bit odd as I thought the point he was making was that pesky scientists are all atheists and atheism is their religion. Apparently not! I have given up trying to understand the logic of Cornelius Hunter and I don't think I need to worry about the consequences of his memes spreading very far just yet..Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Mung is an old-style creationist, Mark. Sal is too accommodationist for Mung's liking.Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

#20 Mung What is your belief about descent?Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Barb #19
Yes, the scientific community has imposed a belief on all people. They do it by firing the people who dare question the holy writ of Darwin (see the thread on Mark Armitage for starters). They brook no dissent when it comes to discussing this in classrooms, either (see the Dover trial).
This is quite a conspiracy(remember are talking about Common Descent). It works globally and has been succeeding for well over 100 years. It has imposed its belief on scientists and educated people of all races, creeds and religions. It has even managed to impose its beliefs on several of the ID proponents on this site.Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Axel, I don't see what is atheistic about capitalism. I think you will find most of the American theists on this site would embrace it as a gift from God. Isn't American Christianity heavily represented on the political right?5for_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

"The evidence is vast for Universal Common Descent," except amongst prokaryotes, from whence all extant life presumably descended. No root no tree. But sure, repeat the lie.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Are you seriously claiming that the scientific community has imposed a belief in common descent on people? Who do they impose it on? Does it happen all round the world? How do they do this? Some kind of secret organisation?
Yes, the scientific community has imposed a belief on all people. They do it by firing the people who dare question the holy writ of Darwin (see the thread on Mark Armitage for starters). They brook no dissent when it comes to discussing this in classrooms, either (see the Dover trial). Surely you know this, Mark. The pro-Darwin lobby really isn't subtle.Barb_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Mark, the scientific community - still currently in employment, that is - are agents of the spread of common descent/Evolution/materialism, etc, all in the service of atheism, not the prime movers. The prime movers are the large corporations, who act as the politicians' puppeteers and are the 'beneficiaries' of the atheistic hegemony of capitalism. Separating religious belief from science (effectively, as pie-in-the-sky, compared to the 'promissory note'!) ensures they have a free hand, to wreak whatever catastrophic evil on the world they choose, absolutely unhampered by moral considerations. Mammon can now pull virtually all the strings. Only the Catholic Church now seems to able to stand between the lawlessness of Mammon and its acolytes and global catastrophe. Well, it's time to pay the tab, now. But it may be, as some pundits have said, that it was all done deliberately, as was the implementation of the first Great Depression, in order to virtually enslave the populace - or such as are able to survive the death throes. Here is an interesting article at the automaticearth.com blog, concerning knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, not unrelated to this topic. NB: For 'evolution', read, 'life'. http://www.theautomaticearth.com/Finance/capitalism-a-norwegian-rat-and-some-cockroaches.htmlAxel_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Axel #10 Are you seriously claiming that the scientific community has imposed a belief in common descent on people? Who do they impose it on? Does it happen all round the world? How do they do this? Some kind of secret organisation?Mark Frank_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB #6
There is a difference between saying that you believe evolution (Common Descent) to be true and asserting it as an incontestable fact. None of the people that you cite would dare take such a hard line as Smith, which indicates a faith-first or religious perspective as opposed to an evidence-based or scientific perspective.
Your argument seems to hang on a subtle distinction between saying "X is true" and "X is a scientific fact" (Smith did not use the word "incontestable"). Surely strength of belief is a matter of degree? Smith, like virtually all scientists, is utterly convinced by the evidence for Common Descent (Note this does not necessarily mean a single ancestor for all life). What is ideological about that? Even if you thought it was an unjustified level of belief, why is that spiritually ideological? It is a belief that is compatible with a vast range of spiritual beliefs including Christianity and Intelligent Design.Mark Frank_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

"The evidence is vast for Universal Common Descent."
Not for the "blind watchmaker" as it's source, there isn't. If you think there, is there is a 1979 Chevy I'd like to sell you. I've driven it from L.A. to New York. And I *prerry darn sure* it will take you to London.CentralScrutinizer_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

The evidence is vast for Universal Common Descent.
Except when it isn't.Mung_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Still no explanation from any of you as to why you pretend to be unaware that the supernatural has been proved by QM in a number of ways; which, of course, undercuts materialism, lock, stock and barrel.Axel_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply