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

Sorry. I meant to address those posts to you, Mark. As it happens expatiating a little on what Stephen said in #6.Axel_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure whether imposing the wearing of a burqa, or being enclosed in the medieval iron maiden, would be the more apt metaphor. The former severely reduces visibility; the latter, terminates the functioning of the brain, (not to speak of the heart, etc) with extreme prejudice, as with their fabled delicacy, the CIA used to designate such operations.Axel_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

'Evolutionist: We do not promote any “spiritual ideologies.”' They certainly do not PROMOTE spiritual ideologies. What they do, is IMPOSE a religious ideology - as in 'religere', 'to bind'. You'd better give your assent to their ideology or else! Never mind that it may be under duress. Wear that Evolutionist burqa or, professionally, you're 'dead meat'!Axel_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Sorry - that should have been: "...down some intended path".Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

The evidence is vast for Universal Common Descent. You don't need faith to think that all known terrestrial organisms have a common ancestor. It's not faith-based, because evidence could easily arise that shows that some group of organisms yet-to-be-discovered had a very different ancestry. Cornelius's insistence that those of us who accept the overwhelming evidence for Universal Common Descent are doing so for "religious" reasons is indeed bizarre. I'd say the evidence was on a par with the the evidence for the age of the earth at around 4 billion years. Even if divine intervention was require to nudge lineages round some intended path.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Part 3: Dr. Cornelius Hunter on ENCODE and "Junk" DNA - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2013/08/part_3_dr_cornelius_hunter_on_.htmlbornagain77_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
i.e. anyone who believes in Common Descent is promoting a spiritual ideology. Yes I know it is absurd but that is what he has written. Do you believe in Common Descent? If so, you Cornelius thinks you are promoting a spiritual ideology. Certainly gpuccio, vj torley and Denyse do.
I think you are missing the point. 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.StephenB_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Axel Cornelius did not classify me as religious. I doubt he has never heard of me. He classified the authors of the paper. Now look at the evidence that Cornelius presents that the authors are promoting an ideological theory:
Smith confuses theory with data and states that they “explicitly measured genetic mutations across 35 mammalian species.” Actually they did no such thing, explicitly or otherwise. What they did do was to compare the genomes of 35 different species.Since they believe those species somehow all evolved from a common ancestor, they inferred that the differences were due to mutations.
i.e. anyone who believes in Common Descent is promoting a spiritual ideology. Yes I know it is absurd but that is what he has written. Do you believe in Common Descent? If so, you Cornelius thinks you are promoting a spiritual ideology. Certainly gpuccio, vj torley and Denyse do.Mark Frank_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

No, Mark. Cornelius classifies you as religious, because Evolution is not scientific on several scores, as has been pointed out many times on here, yet you push it in the teeth of the ever-mounting contrary evidence, with all the out-of-kilter zeal of secular fundamentalists. Though it is based on gratuitous conjectures, no evidence against it can falsify it in the eyes of its devotees. It's an emotional thing. You must bear in mind that we are dealing with people who have no regard for empirical evidence or they would concede that QM has proved the supernatural origin of the universe, as well as features that quantum physicists are able to study right now. What formally religious people call 'mysteries', scientists would call 'paradoxes', and parasitic, atheist numpties insist on calling, 'counter-intuitive', as they confidently wait for the encashment of the 'promissory note'.Axel_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Barb #1 It is only Cornelius, with his bizarre idea that anyone who claims evolution is a fact is promoting a spiritual ideology, that is concluding the authors or evolution in general is promoting a spiritual ideology. Cornelius argument is very odd. In this context “evolution” means common descent. So the “spiritual ideology” being professed is compatible with a vast range of religious beliefs and also intelligent design including the views held by the people you quote. Mark Frank_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

We need to start calling these people out on their hypocrisy. If you ask an atheist why they believe God doesn't exist, they'll be talking science straight off. If you then ask them to consider that ID is also science, they'll just deny it, because, according to them, science cannot entail spiritual, supernatural, conclusions. But clearly, if science cannot possibly speak to spiritual or supernatural reality, neither can it be useful for determining its non-reality.Brent_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species." Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism." Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous." Good, so now we know that all these people are wrong. Evolution does promote spiritual ideologies, as noted above. If it is truly just a scientific theory, then there is no need to mention spirituality at all.Barb_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply