[_ Old Earth _] EVOLUTION - A BELIEVER'S PERSPECTIVE

[lordkalvan]

It is obvious from the context that Johnson doesn't "suggest" a designer is a space alien - is that what you think he is saying?

What is he saying, then? He seems to be placing God, intelligent aliens and some unimaginable entity on the same footing.

 

[zeke]

Newsflash: atheism has little or nothing to do with politics.

Not in the real world - in the real world it is all about politics including the Darwinism that is passed of as science.

 

[zeke]

What is he saying, then? He seems to be placing God, intelligent aliens and some unimaginable entity on the same footing.

You can email him but I doubt that he believes in space aliens - do you? Johnson does, however see the fallacies associated with Darwinism.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not in the real world - in the real world it is all about politics including the Darwinism that is passed of as science.

Not from where I'm standing and as you have offered no persuasive argument to convince ne otherwise I would suggest that what you claim to be 'the real world' exists mostly in your imagination.

 

[lordkalvan]

You can email him but I doubt that he believes in space aliens - do you?

You are the one claiming he doesn't, so I guess he was just being disingenuous then in order to disguise the overtly religious nature of his agenda.

Johnson does, however see the fallacies associated with Darwinism.

Multiple unsupported assertions here: that what Johnson 'sees' is what you claim he 'sees', that if it is it has any relevance to what he is commenting on, that there are fallacies associated with Darwinism, and that even if there are these have any significance for our current understanding of evolution and evolutionary theory.

 

[zeke]

Not from where I'm standing and as you have offered no persuasive argument to convince ne otherwise I would suggest that what you claim to be 'the real world' exists mostly in your imagination.

I am really not too concerned with whether or not you are persuaded - the real world remains what it is even if you choose not to participate and in the real world Darwinian mythology is still passed of as science.

But scientists are catching on and we now see hundreds of Phd scientists who Dissent From Darwinism...

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. ~ Discovery Institute​

 

[zeke]

You are the one claiming he doesn't, so I guess he was just being disingenuous then in order to disguise the overtly religious nature of his agenda.

No - I think any "reasonable person" can understand he was not suggesting life came via space aliens. Are you a reasonable person? Do you believe space aliens created life on this planet? In your 'real world' how did life arise from non-life via purely naturalistic possesses (a logical absurdity)?

 

[Barbarian]

Zeke writes:

You can email him but I doubt that he believes in space aliens - do you?

Lord Kalvan writes:
You are the one claiming he doesn't, so I guess he was just being disingenuous then in order to disguise the overtly religious nature of his agenda.

Yes. It's why the Dover Trial was such a "train wreck" for ID (Philip Johnson's words). The trial showed in the wedge document and in the editing of "Of Pandas and People", ID was merely a subterfuge in order to sneak God into the classroom in disguise.

The irony is, He was already there. My daughter was an officer in Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they met and prayed in school regularly. It's just that only the people who wanted to do it, did it. No one was forced.

But of course, that's not good enough for Johnson and his fellows. They want everyone to agree with them, or at least to comply.

Like Luther, they think a lie in a "good cause" is the way to serve God.

 

[zeke]

My daughter was an officer in Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they met and prayed in school regularly.

But the atheistic-Darwinistic "new atheists" (Dawkins, Dennett, et al) would do away with any theistic beliefs - including prayer. How does your version of evolutionism differ from theirs? Remember, they do not allow god-talk - it is anathema to them.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am really not too concerned with whether or not you are persuaded - the real world remains what it is even if you choose not to participate and in the real world Darwinian mythology is still passed of as science.

Of course you're not concerned, but that doesn't make your unsupported assertions supported, just like those assertions you have made that scientists as a group conclude that 'theropod to bird evolution is suffering a meltdown' and that it is a 'worn-out myth'.

But scientists are catching on and we now see hundreds of Phd scientists who Dissent From Darwinism...

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. ~ Discovery Institute​

And I have referred you to Project Steve before, which clearly demonstrates the misleading nature and propagandistic motives of this alleged 'dissent'. Can you explain how this 'dissent' sheds any light on the evolutionary origins of birds? After all, the source you previously gave cited clearly seems to conclude that birds did indeed evolve.

 

[lordkalvan]

No - I think any "reasonable person" can understand he was not suggesting life came via space aliens. Are you a reasonable person?

Then why did he discuss God, advanced alien cultures and unimaginable entities on an apparently equal footing as possible intelligent designers? What is a reasonable person supposed to conclude from his statement? That he was being disingenuous in order to obscure his real motives?

Do you believe space aliens created life on this planet?

You appear to be confused that, because I question why Johnson mentioned space aliens in his comment on intelligent designers, this in some way means that it is myself who believes this and that, whether I do or not, this has some relevance to Johnson's understanding and motives.

In your 'real world' how did life arise from non-life via purely naturalistic possesses (a logical absurdity)?

There appears to be an unsupported assumption in your question - that the naturalistic origin of life is 'a logical absurdity' - that prejudges any reply before it is given. Is it your position that God could not have created the initial conditions from which life could have arisen naturalistically? Given that he supposedly created an entire Universe with all its complexity and detail, this possibility does not seem to be wholly unimaginable. If it is, perhaps you can explain why?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
My daughter was an officer in Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they met and prayed in school regularly.

But the atheistic-Darwinistic "new atheists" (Dawkins, Dennett, et al) would do away with any theistic beliefs

Nope. None of them want to outlaw religion. Wouldn't work anyway.

including prayer.

Nope. Dawkins, for example, says people have a right to pray.

How does your version of evolutionism differ from theirs?

How does your version of atheism differ from theirs?

 

[zeke]

And I have referred you to Project Steve before, which clearly demonstrates the misleading nature and propagandistic motives of this alleged 'dissent'.

Steve who and who is he misleading?

Can you explain how this 'dissent' sheds any light on the evolutionary origins of birds?

But I don't think birds evolved from theropods - birds have always been birds and dogs have always been dogs. The Dissent From Darwinism scientists reject parts of the faltering Darwinian paradigm for the obvious reasons.

Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims." ~ Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

---Discovery Institute​

 

[zeke]

Nope. None of them want to outlaw religion.

They want to eliminate religion, especially the Christian faith. Why? Or do you not know?

How does your version of atheism differ from theirs?

I am not an atheist but you are a Darwinist. Can you not explain the difference in your version of Darwinism? Is that too hard?

 

[lordkalvan]

Steve who and who is he misleading?

Despite this studied disingenuousness, I think you understand what I wrote. Project Steve:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

But I don't think birds evolved from theropods - birds have always been birds and dogs have always been dogs.

Then why cite a source that discusses the eviolutionary origins of birds? If birds have always been birds, how do you classify Archie and why? Dogs appear to have been wolves, by the way.

The Dissent From Darwinism scientists reject parts of the faltering Darwinian paradigm for the obvious reasons.

Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims." ~ Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

---Discovery Institute​

As neither you nor the smattering of 'dissenting' scientists have established that the 'Darwinian paradigm' (whatever it is) is 'faltering' nor what 'the obvious reasons' for this 'faltering' are, perhaps you can explain why their alleged 'dissent' should be accredited any merit at all?

'The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[35] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[36]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

 

[lordkalvan]

Steve who and who is he misleading?

Despite this studied disingenuousness, I think you understand what I wrote. Project Steve:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

But I don't think birds evolved from theropods - birds have always been birds and dogs have always been dogs.

Then why cite a source that discusses the evolutionary origins of birds? If birds have always been birds, how do you classify Archie and why? Dogs appear to have been wolves, by the way.

The Dissent From Darwinism scientists reject parts of the faltering Darwinian paradigm for the obvious reasons.

Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims." ~ Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

---Discovery Institute​

As neither you nor the smattering of 'dissenting' scientists have established that the 'Darwinian paradigm' (whatever it is) is 'faltering' nor what 'the obvious reasons' for this 'faltering' are, perhaps you can explain why their alleged 'dissent' should be accredited any merit at all?

'The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[35] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[36]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. None of them want to outlaw religion.

They want to eliminate religion, especially the Christian faith. Why? Or do you not know?

Show me where they proposed outlawing religion. I think you made that up.

Barbarian asks:
How does your version of atheism differ from theirs?

I am not an atheist

If not, it's hard to understand why you side with them so often.

but you are a Darwinist.

Actually, Darwin made a number of errors. His four points still stand, but I accept the Modern Synthesis, which is different than Darwinism. I don't think anyone is still a pure Darwinist. But I'm kind of surprised you suddenly switched from the creationist term, "evolutionism" to "Darwinism."

Can you not explain the difference in your version of Darwinism?

In the Modern Synthesis, genetics allows us to consider mutation as well as natural selection. And it rejects any sort of Lamarckist ideas.

 

[zeke]

Show me where they proposed outlawing religion. I think you made that up.

You are the one making things up. I didn't use the word "outlaw" - did I? I did say they want to eliminate religion, especially the Christian faith. Why? Or do you not know?

Actually, Darwin made a number of errors.

Yes - Darwinism is based on a series of errors - that is why hundreds of PhD scientists are becoming 'apostates to Darwinism'.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Show me where they proposed outlawing religion. I think you made that up.

You are the one making things up. I didn't use the word "outlaw" - did I? I did say they want to eliminate religion, especially the Christian faith.

So all you meant was that they wanted to persuade everyone to their way of thinking? How is that different than anyone else?

Barbarian explains why scientists have changed Darwin's theory:
Actually, Darwin made a number of errors. His four points still stand, but I accept the Modern Synthesis, which is different than Darwinism. I don't think anyone is still a pure Darwinist. But I'm kind of surprised you suddenly switched from the creationist term, "evolutionism" to "Darwinism."

Yes - Darwinism is based on a series of errors - that is why hundreds of PhD scientists are becoming 'apostates to Darwinism'.

Based on the data from your guys and from Project Steve, about 0.3% of them. The bandwagon argument is a big loser for you guys. I never could figure out what you hope to gain by showing that such a tiny minority of scientists accept your beliefs.

 

[zeke]

So all you meant was that they wanted to persuade everyone to their way of thinking?

Again - I meant exactly what I posted - the 'new atheists' led by Darwinians wants to eliminate religion, especially the Christian faith and they want to do this for the obvious reasons.

But I'm kind of surprised you suddenly switched from the creationist term, "evolutionism" to "Darwinism."

Interchangeable terms my friend.

I never could figure out what you hope to gain by showing that such a tiny minority of scientists accept your beliefs.

This is the reason many of us question your 'scientific credentials' - you make odd statements. Science is not based on majority rule. Most discoveries are made by those who disagree with the majority - think Galileo. It is significant that many scientists are rejecting Darwinism - they do not reject gravity - why Darwinism?.

Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel. ~ Discovery Institute​