Video: On “The Big Questions”, “Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?”

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 14, 2013

News}

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

Features our own Steve Fuller (although, unfortunately, he doesn’t contribute much to the discussion). Largely another media setup — why does the media always opt to bring on unsophisticated representatives of the Darwin-doubting viewpoint? Where are the molecular biologists who have come to doubt Darwin?

Comments

'... "prescriptive" rather than "descriptive"', I should have written in the last sentence. Darwinian evolution's incredentials in relation to empirical evidence are a matter of record - however anathema that topic clearly is to the mass media.Axel_{January 19, 2013
January
01
Jan
19
19
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

On “The Big Questions”, “Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?” I say a resounding, 'Yes!' Too much is made of empirical science. Just because the postulations of evolutionists have been routinely-empirically disproved must not be allowed to disqualify it as science. After all the word simply means, 'knowledge'. Its true nature as a religious credo should not disqualify it, or even marginalize it as a bizarrely anachronistic cult. It is simply that, as a scientific theory, it is prescriptive, rather than empirical - counter-intuitive, if you will, rather than wrong, wrong, wrong. Come back, Ron Hubbard and Mary Baker Eddy. All is forgiven.Axel_{January 19, 2013
January
01
Jan
19
19
2013
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

OT: Institute of Scientific ApologeticsMung_{January 18, 2013
January
01
Jan
18
18
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
Reporting truth from the Holy Land,
Really? What makes it holy?Mung_{January 18, 2013
January
01
Jan
18
18
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

"our own Steve Fuller" - UD News Why then does News always introduce Fuller as "a secular humanist" when he is no longer that? The IDM is not exactly a champion of secular humanism. Should we predict News will again next time introduce Fuller as a secular humanist? Check out that even the Wiki entry about him has removed that label. I'm not sure, in fact, I'm quite skeptical that Fuller would accept being called "your (UD's) own," even if he occasionally posts here, because Fuller is not a Big-ID proponent. The IDM must realise that people consciously and intentionally refuse to be associated with it for political and other ideological reasons and not just for scientific ones. This is the position that has been reached, after almost 20 yrs of the IDM's existence. "at least Steve Fuller sort of stood up for the creationists" - tjguy Steve Fuller thinks 'creationism' is foolish, ignorant of scientific knowledge and unnecessary for Muslims, Bible-believing Christians and Jews. So do most Christians outside of the the USA, who predominantly accept small-id ('intelligent design' = theological knowledge/faith), but reject Big-ID (Intelligent Design = scientifically provable). Leave it fundamentalist Christians inside the USA who ironically (and most unknowingly), but quite obviously defend scientism to try to build a science of creation, aka 'creation science,' contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the beliefs of the vast majority of their brothers and sisters around the world. I haven't had time to watch this video, but am well familiar with Fuller's views. Reporting truth from the Holy Land, GregoryGregory_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Oops. Another clarification, this time for post 17. Should read like this: Having scientists on the evolution SIDE enabled the evolutionists to talk down to the "unbelievers in evolution" and explain to them how it is. Sorry.tjguy_{January 16, 2013
January
01
Jan
16
16
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Oops. I didn't mean to imply that Steve Fuller was not a strong scientist. I wish there were actual creationist scientists and other ID scientists, but these guys had an agenda - to make unbelievers of evolution look silly, unscientific, and uneducated. Having scientists on the evolution scientists enabled them to talk down to the creationists and explain to them how it is. It made them look superior and they didn't have to deal with the difficult arguments that they actually face.tjguy_{January 16, 2013
January
01
Jan
16
16
2013
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Wow! That guy is crafty! He had a strong bias and didn't even try to hide it. Whenever the conversation got onto the evidence for God, he steered the conversation away because he didn't want people to realize that when you accept the kind of evolution some of those guys were espousing, you end up throwing away your faith. One atheist in the audience agreed that attributing evolution would be put God in a negative light and he proceeded to hint that God didn't exist. But he was quickly shut up by the moderator who didn't want that kind of opinion broadcast. One of the creationist guys brought up the origin of life and was quickly shut up again. The host said "That is not what evolution is about. It's about the process." Well, yes, that too is part of it, but you can't have biological evolution without chemical evolution, geological evolution, or cosmological evolution. It comes as a set and is an all or nothing deal for those who believe in unguided evolution. (I recognize some believe it was a guided process.) The "Christian" paleontologist who believed that any religion leads to God then said this: "...which is not to say that there isn't a compelling scientific theory that uses understanding of natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life. I suspect that's true." Don't you find that interesting? He "suspects" there is a compelling scientific theory. That word theory is a strong word. It must have strong support for something to reach the level of theory. Convenient how they use the word theory isn't it. When it suits their purposes, they throw the word theory around to bolster their views, but I know enough that there is no such theory, nor do I think there is even a compelling hypothesis. They want to claim evolution is a proven fact when they don't even know if life was able to evolve on it's own. It's a clever way to frame the debate and make their side stronger, but you just can't separate the two unless you are willing to admit a supernatural aspect to the origin of life. They are not. I wish they would have gotten stronger scientists on the creationist side and the ID side. At least Steve Fuller sort of stood up for the creationists in the debate a little. I appreciated that. Most would have ridiculed them to try and make their own position between the two seem more tenable.tjguy_{January 16, 2013
January
01
Jan
16
16
2013
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

From 1 hr 46 there is an appended Islamic tract. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2013
January
01
Jan
16
16
2013
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Observation: At the 1 hr 43 minute mark, we see an assertion of Islamic faith, set in a context of an overly dismissive characterisation of the fossil hominids. Fair notice. KFkairosfocus_{January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

KF, so far, IMO, a very good video. I'm picking up at the 44 minute mark this morning where it appears they are going to start talking about biological lifebornagain77_{January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

BA77: I have put up your latest vid link here, and framed it as a challenge, without endorsing all that is said therein. KFkairosfocus_{January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

And if you really care to get into the details of "randomness": It is interesting to note that if one wants to build a better random number generator for a computer program, than a better source of entropy is required to be found to drive the randomness:
Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – Eminent Chemist
Moreover:
Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy Excerpt: Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness or disorder in a system. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/chem30_05/1_energy/energy3_1.htm
And the maximum source of entropic randomness in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest,,,
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! - January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
,,, there is also a very strong case to be made that the cosmological constant in General Relativity, i.e. the extremely finely tuned 1 in 10^120 expansion of space-time, drives, or is deeply connected to, entropy as is measured by diffusion:
Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
Ironically, neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is as well established as Gravity, but the plain fact of the matter is that the space-time of General Relativity itself, which is by far our best description of Gravity, testifies very strongly against the entire concept of ‘random’ Darwinian evolution. In fact this undirected entropic randomness of the universe, which is suppose to be the primary source of undirected creativity in Darwinian evolution, is in fact the primary reason why living things grow old and die in this universe:
Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
This following video brings the point personally home to us about the very destructive effects of entropy on our bodies:
Ageing Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y
Verse, quote and music:
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946) “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’”(1) Gilbert Newton Lewis Creed – One Last Breath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkuBUAwfe0
bornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

The problem is that Darwin's strawman of the fixity of species is still alive and well. That is everyone who dosagrees with the ToE argues FOR the fixity of species. Anti- the theory of evolution = anti-evolution of any type. It's called Equivocation and Evolution see also: Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution And if you ask me IDists should contribute for a media blitz explaining all of that. At least a full year or until the likes of the NCSE finally and publically recoginize the facts.Joe_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

The Evolution Lobby We Can Reasonably Dismiss the Claims of Theistic Darwinists by Casey Luskin 4. It’s Metaphysically Neutral Yet another argument from theistic evolutionists is the claim that the “unguided” aspect of Darwinian evolution is merely a “philosophical gloss” or an “add-on”9 promoted by new atheists who use bad philosophy. While many new atheists undoubtedly make poor philosophers, the “unguided” nature of Darwinian evolution is not a mere metaphysical add-on but has always been a core part of the theory as defined by its leading proponents. Unfortunately, even some eminent Christian philosophers appear unaware of this. For example, Alvin Plantinga cites Ernst Mayr, a leading architect of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, to claim that the random nature of mutations “is clearly compatible with their being caused by God.”10 But when defining neo-Darwinism, Mayr wrote that “there is no necessary direction, no thought of necessary progress, and no reaching of any final goals” and that “close study of evolutionary progress shows that its characteristics are not compatible with what one would expect from a process guided by final causes.”11 That doesn’t sound much like a process that is “clearly compatible” with divine causation. Plantinga notes that when evolutionary biologists speak of the “random” nature of mutations, they merely mean that mutations arise without regard to the needs of the organism. Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala makes this argument, stating, “Mutations are random or chance events because . . . [they] are unoriented with respect to adaptation.” Plantinga would suggest that this is compatible with God guiding evolution, but Ayala defines Darwinian evolution by stating that “natural selection does not operate according to some preordained plan.” Ayala continues: The scientific account of these events does not necessitate recourse to a preordained plan, whether imprinted from the beginning or through successive interventions by an omniscient and almighty Designer. Biological evolution differs from a painting or an artifact in that it is not the outcome of preconceived design. Ayala concludes that, “in evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”12 Again, that doesn’t sound like a religiously neutral model of biological origins. Indeed, in surveying how mainstream biology textbooks define Darwinian evolution, we learn it is a “random,” “blind,” “uncaring,” “heartless,” “undirected,” “purposeless,” and “chance” process that acts “without plan” or “any goals”; that we are “not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design,” and that “a god of design and purpose is not necessary.”13 If those don’t entail claims that cut against theism, what would? Moreover, if Darwinian evolution is irrelevant to faith, why do so many atheists cite it as a reason for abandoning religion? A 2007 poll of 149 evolutionary biologists found that only two “described themselves as full theists.”14 Likewise, a survey of biologist members of the NAS found that over 94 percent were atheists or agnostics.15 It’s no coincidence that Eugenie Scott—the de facto head of the Evolution Lobby—signed the Third Humanist Manifesto, or that the world’s most famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, is also the world’s most famous atheist. In Dawkins’s own words, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”16 Darwinian evolution might be a “secondary” matter for theists, but that doesn’t mean it is an unimportant one. Just because some purport to reconcile evolution and traditional theism doesn’t mean that Darwinism is theologically inert. http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo21/we-can-reasonably-dismiss-the-claims-of-theistic-darwinists.phpbornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

2. If evolution were true science would not be possible (A. Plantinga: Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism)
Actually, Plantinga holds that it is self-defeating to hold both evolutionary theory and naturalism. What is self-defeating, he thinks, is "unguided" evolution or "blind watchmaker" evolution. A crucial move in his argument is the thought that anyone who accepts naturalism has no reason to believe that science is possible. So far as I can tell, he's pretty friendly towards both theistic evolution and design theory.Kantian Naturalist_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

H: you may well have been taught so, reflecting the materialist takeover of sci and sci edu. The definition you have been taught is an ideologically loaded false narrative that begs big questions on the history and phil of science you have probably not been taught about, not least it forfeits the obvious major goal and value of science to seek to discover the truth about our world based on an empirical evidence led, inductive and objective investigation aware of relevant limitations of such inductive thought. In the end, there is going to be a terrible price to pay for this willful ideological distortion of science and science education by people and institutions who were in every position to learn or know better and had every duty of care to do better. I suggest you start here and look in wider and wider circles, including this appendix. KFkairosfocus_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77: German government has blocked the video in Germany. Here's another link to the documentary (with only part 3 being blocked): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2AC53F7105B2F1D7JWTruthInLove_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

ATHEISTS HATE THIS DOCUMENTARY The Signs HD (Atheism VS Theism) Full Documentary - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASU-AjPA7Mbornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=58humbled_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Is it time for all religions to accept evolution as yet just another religion? Is it time for all religions to accept that evolution proves that all religions are false?Mung_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

3 points 1. Evolution is already a religion in its own right (Cornelius Hunter: Darwin's God) 2. If evolution were true science would not be possible (A. Plantinga: Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism) 3. Evolution can't even explain the origination of a single protein, much less all of life on earth (Douglas Axe: 1 in 10^77 rarity for finding functional protein folds) Perhaps it would be better for Darwinists to try to apply for tax exempt status as a Religious organization rather than try to convert other religions to its belief system. :)bornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berrabornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply