No end to the marvels of Darwin’s theory of evolution

"I am fully persuaded that my own mind is only a slight modification of the same kind of mind possessed by brute beasts. Who could trust such a mind with such grand conclusions?” -- Charles Darwin

Something kind for your backwards retinas: http://vimeo.com/103444038 leodp

Exactly, bornagain77! (responding to your 1st comment) I believe in the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God. When I think of the pure bologna of evolution, Darwin, and subsequently atheism, this makes me think of Proverbs 26:12, which says: "Have you seen a man who thinks he is wise? There is more hope for someone stupid than for him." Ha, have to laugh at the sheer bluntness of Scripture Ragnar

OT: podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 here's part 1 for those who missed it: podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 bornagain77

BA77:

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

This is more true than you suspect. The hidden scientific knowledge that is in ancient texts will soon amaze all and radically change our world. Mapou

Exactly how is logic and reasoning to be grounded in a worldview that insists everything arose without any rhyme or reason? To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place. The atheistic/materialistic worldview is incoherent as to providing a rational foundation for practicing science in that it presupposes no logic or reason behind the universe. All of which explains, number one, why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science,, and which, number two, also explains why the atheistic explanations for how the universe came into being, and for how we ourselves came into being, both wind up in epistemological failure. A few notes along that line:

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Is Atheism Irrational? By GARY GUTTING - NY Times - February 9, 2014 Excerpt: GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true. Plantinga: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable. Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable. But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both. So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439

Verse and Music:

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Thrive - Casting Crowns http://myktis.com/songs/thrive/

bornagain77

Drc466, I consider a myself a Theist (Christian) IDer. I don't find the arguments of "bad design" compelling, but noted that it is an issue that comes up if you are a "3". Not an issue with 1's or 2's. It is either appearance of bad design (1) or Natural bad design (2). Natural bad design is easier to shrug off than Supernatural bad design. Something else that bugs me (scares me?) is "evil" in Nature, like that wasp that sticks a metal spike into larvae to feed it's own brood. Yikes. ppolish

Well said, Mapou. Ha ha ha! Not to mention brainwashing Ragnar

Good question: where the heck did logic go? Well, it was never there. Darwin actually said that he thought it was absurd that the eye could have come about by his theory evolution but then he goes on to say how he thought it happened anyway. What a joke. The eye is irreducibly complex anyway so the logical thing to say is that God designed it. Heck, Darwin's evolution is the opposite of logic Ragnar

3...is dealing with issues of bad design.

Really? You find arguments of "bad design" compelling? I would think the entire field of biomimetics would argue that "superlative design" is the rule, not otherwise. Which would seem to support 3 even over 2. Also, I would rephrase 3 as: 3) Design was authentic, guided, supernatural, and a singular event. drc466

Darwinism has always been the religion of liars and jackasses. Don't get offended. It's just my opinion and I speak my mind. Mapou

Seems there are 3 views on Design. 1) It is an but an "appearance of design" 2) Design is authentic, guided, and Natural. 3) Design is authentic, guided, and Unnatural (Supernatural). 1) is NeoDarwin, Theist and Atheist 2) are the up and coming minority of "Thomas Nagel Mind&Cosmos" thinkers and nonTheist IDers, 3) are the Theist IDers. I think the strongest Science may be with 2. 1 is biting the dust. 3, unlike 1 or 2, is dealing with issues of bad design. ppolish

and since Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of unguided processes creating even a single protein of a amazing design that is 'remarkable for its novelty and reliability' by unguided processes,,, then Darwinists have to rely on our imperfect knowledge, and the fact that Darwinian processes are notorious for breaking things, to argue something is 'remarkable for its poor design'. Trouble with that reasoning, besides the prediction of two completely contrary results, is that as our knowledge keeps increasing, there is nothing in the list, (appendix, tonsils, backwards retinas, and junk DNA) that Darwinists can point to as truly being a bad design. appendix and tonsils

"The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists:_appendix_has_purpose "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack - June 2011 Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-surgical-tonsils-appendix-early-heart.html#share Evolutionists Multiply Miracles - February 12, 2013 Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis” (about the appendix being vestigial).,,, http://crev.info/2013/02/evolutionists-multiply-miracles/

backwards retinas

Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021 Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer - Jul 21, 2014 Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. http://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a "Design Feature," Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye "Is Folly" - Casey Luskin - August 8, 2014 Excerpt: Now a new paper in Nature Communications, "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision," has expanded upon this (2010) research, further showing the eye's optimal design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/physorg_special088541.html

junk DNA

ENCODE: Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3V2thsJ1Wc Quote from preceding video: "It's very hard to get over the density of information (in the genome),,, The data says its like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things we thought we understood and yet it is much, much, more complex. And then (there are) places of the genome we thought were completely silent and (yet) they're (now found to be) teeming with life, teeming with things going on. We still really don't understand that." Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) - Sept. 2012 http://bcove.me/26vjjl5a Quote from preceding video: “It's just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, ‘I bet it's going to be complicated', and then you are faced with it and you are like 'My God, that is mind blowing.'” Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE 2012

supplemental note:

Stephen Meyer (And Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

bornagain77

and since Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of unguided processes creating even a single protein of a amazing design that is 'remarkable for its novelty and reliability' by unguided processes,,, then Darwinists have to rely on our imperfect knowledge, and the fact that Darwinian processes are notorious for breaking things, to argue something is 'remarkable for its poor design'. Trouble with that reasoning, besides the prediction of two completely contrary results, is that as our knowledge keeps increasing, there is nothing in the list, (appendix, tonsils, backwards retinas, and junk DNA) that Darwinists can point to as truly being a bad design. appendix and tonsils

Appendix has purpose: Excerpt: "The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists:_appendix_has_purpose Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack - June 2011 Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-surgical-tonsils-appendix-early-heart.html#share Evolutionists Multiply Miracles - February 12, 2013 Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis” (about the appendix being vestigial).,,, http://crev.info/2013/02/evolutionists-multiply-miracles/

backwards retinas

Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021 Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer - Jul 21, 2014 Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. http://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a "Design Feature," Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye "Is Folly" - Casey Luskin - August 8, 2014 Excerpt: Now a new paper in Nature Communications, "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision," has expanded upon this (2010) research, further showing the eye's optimal design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/physorg_special088541.html

junk DNA

ENCODE: Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3V2thsJ1Wc Quote from preceding video: "It's very hard to get over the density of information (in the genome),,, The data says its like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things we thought we understood and yet it is much, much, more complex. And then (there are) places of the genome we thought were completely silent and (yet) they're (now found to be) teeming with life, teeming with things going on. We still really don't understand that." Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) - Sept. 2012 http://bcove.me/26vjjl5a Quote from preceding video: “It's just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, ‘I bet it's going to be complicated', and then you are faced with it and you are like 'My God, that is mind blowing.'” Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE 2012

supplemental note:

Stephen Meyer (And Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

bornagain77