Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Get your free Darwin books on ID here

arroba Email

From National Academy of Sciences Press:

Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion (2007) by Francisco Ayala, Thinking Evolutionarily: Evolution Education Across the Life Sciences: Summary of a Convocation (2012), and In the Light of Evolution: Volume III: Two Centuries of Darwin (2009) by John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala, and More.

If you live in the United States, you may well have already paid via your taxes, so do take advantage of this offer.

News at Linked In

Of course, one would have to pay to get more correct information, but life usually does work that way.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion" by former Catholic Dominican priest Francisco Ayala, says a lot in a few words. One: no longer a priest. Two: Yahweh, through Darwin, appears then to have has cast out his own law which he wrote in stone (if ever there was a strong divine act of teaching without words, that should speak volumes). Result; a gift from Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit? More like a gift from Uncle Screwtape. The Screwtape Letters were written by C S Lewis, who tended towards creationism. From http://creation.com/cs-lewis-and-evolution, the following are cited: ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’ C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984. And, In a letter to Dorothy Sayers on 4 March 1954, he wrote: "Lead us, Evolution, lead us Up the future’s endless stair: Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us For stagnation is despair: Groping, guessing, yet progressing, Lead us nobody knows where." mw
Here is the paper Dr Nelson referenced:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Interesting titles.
Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion ,,,Summary of a Convocation
I looked up Convocation
Full Definition of convocation 1 a : an assembly of persons convoked b (1) : an assembly of bishops and representative clergy of the Church of England (2) : a consultative assembly of clergy and lay delegates from one part of an Episcopal diocese; also : a territorial division of an Episcopal diocese c : a ceremonial assembly of members of a college or university 2: the act or process of convoking http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convocation
Usually Darwinists try to hide the flawed Theistic premises of Darwinism, but here the Theological premises are right in the titles of some of their books. A few notes as to Ayala and Avise: In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala extensively uses the theological argument of ‘bad design’ in his book to support Darwinian evolution and invites him to present empirical evidence, any positive evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
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” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
Mutation total (as of May 6, 2016) - 179,235 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
Contrary to what Dr. Avise may want to believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims,,, That this fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the science at hand.
Essential Prediction of Darwinian Theory of Macroevolution Falsified by Information Degradation - Kirk Durston - June 24, 2015 (with links to papers on site) Excerpt: It is generally agreed that the rate of deleterious mutations is much greater than the rate of beneficial mutations. My own work with 35 protein families suggests that the rate of destruction is, at minimum, 8 times the rate of neutral or beneficial mutations. Simply put, the digital information of life is being destroyed much faster than it can be repaired or improved. New functions may evolve, but the overall loss of functional information in other areas of the genome will, on average, be significantly greater. The net result is that the digital information of life is running down. The second series of falsifying observations is indicated by actual organisms we have studied most closely. First, the digital information for the bacterial world is degrading due to a net deletional bias in mutations involving insertions and deletions. Second, the fruit fly, also one of the most studied life forms in evolutionary biology, is showing an ongoing, genome-wide loss of DNA across the entire genus. Finally, humans are not exempt and are accumulating harmful mutations (degrading changes in our digital information) at an alarming rate. There are many more examples. In conclusion, the digital information of life appears to be steadily degrading, rather than increasing, falsifying an essential prediction of neo-Darwinian theory and verifying a prediction of intelligent design science. This ought not to be surprising, as every other area of science, except for evolutionary biology, grants that natural processes degrade information, regardless of the storage media and copying process. For neo-Darwinian macroevolution to work, it required something that was in flat-out contradiction to the real world. http://p2c.com/students/blogs/kirk-durston/2015/06/essential-prediction-darwinian-theory-macroevolution-falsified Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c Genetic Entropy - peer reviewed references http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
of related note:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html

Leave a Reply