How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[tacticalogic]

The question came about from comments to the effect that miracles are events that contradict the known laws of nature, and that medical doctors see "miracles" happen all the time.

Does pondedring the question in that context produce the same result?

[CottShop]

[[Darwin was being metaphorical, as indicated by the phrase: “may be said to be striving.”]]

Oh I can’tr resist this- IF He was being metaphorical, and we only have your interpretation that he was, then how can we then know that anythign else he might have said wasn’t metaphorical? I only ask because Christians are accused of ‘not being literal enough’ when reading God’s word, of being ‘too literal’, of not knowing what can be read as literal, and what can be read as metaphorical- blah blah blah. It’s inferred that the bible can’t be trusted because it has ‘many interpretations’ (apparently the whole book must hterefore be subjective instead of objective truth)

[CottShop]

[[Wrong.]]

I forgot the ‘?’ after the apparently- I was/meant to ask him if that was what he was inferring.

[CottShop]

Woops- no i Didn’t- it was YOU that didn’t post my ‘?’ after the apparently- Talk about twisting meanings!

[js1138]

the ‘most error prone’ is inferring that it can’t be trusted at all apparently? Is that what you’re suggesting?

In the absence of corroborating evidence, I would not accept eyewitness testimony for any really important decision making, especially if it conflicts with my understanding of the way the world works. Personally, I've seen things that I know were not there. One doesn't have to be a liar or psychotic to misperceive or misinterpret what one sees.

I'm sure you are aware that every field and every profession has frauds. That is why scientists try to replicate important new discoveries, and why frauds are found.

Scientist are not nicer people or more honest. It's just that science as an institution has a built in skepticism and a tradition of expecting errors and fraud.

When someone comes up with a radical idea like cold fusion, it's not anti-science to say, "I think you've made an error. Show us your procedure so we can try to replicate your findings."

[CottShop]

Will watch later-

[[What would be a sound motive for accepting a miracle without investigation?]]

When the antiChrist is lying dead and stinking and rotting in the streets for 3 days, for all to witness, and rises from the dead-, and starts performing supernatural feats, I’d say that would be pretty strong motivation- also if someone lost hteir head, and someone restored it with just a word, and you or I witnessed it, I’d say it would be pretty strong reason to beleive. If you or I were to be around someone on a daily basis who was performing spontanious miracle after miracle, I woudl htink that it would be pretty strong reason to beleive- of course there will always be those that will not beleive even if they witnessed such events- thinking it all nothign but trickery.

While it’s good to be skeptical, there will come a time when these type miracle events occure that simpyl can’t be ignored

[js1138]

After a hundred and fifty years it makes no difference whether Darwin was sufficiently careful with his terminology.

Reality does not change because a scientist or journalist is loose with words.

Revealed religion is a bit different in this regard. Religion does not include the concepts of skepticism and verification. All you have is testimony, and it is plain from the schisms and wars over religion, that testimony differs from person to person.

[js1138]

also if someone lost hteir head, and someone restored it with just a word, and you or I witnessed it, I’d say it would be pretty strong reason to beleive

Depends on what you mean by witness.

Personally I'm more impressed by the precepts to love your neighbor and your enemy than I am by miracles. The precepts sound genuinely inspired. The miracles cannot reliably be distinguished from conjuring tricks.

[CottShop]

[[In the absence of corroborating evidence, I would not accept eyewitness testimony for any really important decision making, especially if it conflicts with my understanding of the way the world works.]]

Hmmm- that’s a wee bit too skeptical- simply discounting a great many independant eyewitness accounts- There are even secular eyewitness accounts confirming some miracles of Christ- but you’d want what? a complete investigation with expert witnesses? First, we’re not talking about someone losing hteir life here- not sure why the high demand you’re placing on this?

Secondly, If you’ve got the time- Read through this .pdf (Adobe Acrobat file) that talks about hte reliability of eyewitnesses, and the refutation of Humes, a pretty famous philosopher, who apparently claimed eyewitnesses couldn’t be trusted. It’s very enlightening, and not too difficult to follow- it’s a good read. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/miracles.pdf

[[When someone comes up with a radical idea like cold fusion, it’s not anti-science to say, “I think you’ve made an error. Show us your procedure so we can try to replicate your findings.”]]

It’s not? Hmmm- Seems Coyoteman doesn’t agree with you- We’re all called antiscience because we point out hte obvious errors and blatant misrepresentations when it comes to Macroevolution

[Alamo-Girl]

Who wins?...... Everyone.. Only weak spirits get harmed making them tougher..

The liars and disingenuous display their opusi..

And move on to relate to their own kind in other websites..

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[js1138]

It stands to reason then, that chimps can construct 96% to 98% of the Notre Dame cathedral, and that chimp chess grandmasters only have a slight (2% to 4%) disadvantage against human GMs.

By your "reasoning" it stands to reason that you can paint 99.99 percent as well as Michelangelo, design as well as Frank Lloyd Wright, sing as well as Pavarotti, and so forth.

[CottShop]

[[The miracles cannot reliably be distinguished from conjuring tricks.]]

Sure they can. There were people who were blind from birth whom Christ restored sight to- He restored a great many people’s sight- these are not ‘conjuring tricks’. He also fullfilled prohpesy- over 66 very specific prohpesies- that was pretty good validifying evidnece that He was genuine- He was asked to perform miracles on the spot- No preperation time, and He did so as asked- These were not staged events- IF He would have sent out fliers askign us to come to His show, and performed these things on stage- Heck yeah I’d be skeptical, and rightly so- however, this was not the case- You don’t restore someone’s head so that they live, nor do you restore a rotting body to life, on hte spot, simply by ‘conjuring tricks’

anyways, if you have time, just read through that link above- it really is quite interesting if you liek that sort of reasoning thinking.

[js1138]

We’re all called antiscience because we point out hte obvious errors and blatant misrepresentations when it comes to Macroevolution

I have repeatedly asked for your best single argument against evolution. And no one has responded to the simple question of what prevents changes from accumulating.

[CottShop]

[[All you have is testimony, and it is plain from the schisms and wars over religion, that testimony differs from person to person.]]

Actually no it doesn’t- Those waging hte wars are NOT God’s own- Even the early Catholic Church was filled with people who were NOT God’s own, but abused the TRUE church, and were tools of the evil one while parading htemselves around as God’s spokespersons- The TRUE Christians have NEVER waged wars- infact it was we who were being murdered by the millions!

[js1138]

We’ve established that you believe certain things.

Which of these things you believe should be taught in science class?

[js1138]

The TRUE Christians have NEVER waged wars

That pretty much leaves Quakers.

I graduated from a Quaker college, by the way. Unfortunately I went to Vietnam, so I'm not qualified to be a Christian.

[Raycpa]

Does pondedring the question in that context produce the same result?

I don't see why one is exclusive of the other, do you?

If God does orchestrate a series of "natural event"'s in order to glorify Him and His Son and he is the creator of the world then it might be impossible to separate what we would perceive as the natural from the supernatural except that we would never quite be able to replicate, understand or even know what the exact physical forces which were used at that moment in time.

These events would be the result of what the rational mind would attribute to a "fluke" or a false witness or a mistaken observation or a miracle.

Continuing with the "if". If God created this complex world in six days, how much harder for him to place within it a set of supernatural events in the context of his foreknowledge of the events to come. (He is outside of time). This would allow that his creation could put forth the unexpected and the impossible without violating the laws of our physical world. The miracle then is the presence of witnesses and the correlation of the event for the purposes of God's glory.

To the extent we begin to understand the processes which come into play that caused the many miracles we can appreciate the awesome power God has to create. However, some who believe they understand the process used may then think of themselves as greater than God. They fail to see that causing the miracle was the easy part. Having it occur at the precise time and place in history is the real miracle.

[Alamo-Girl]

Perhaps the physical can be explained as the result of natural forces yet we are left with the problem of recognizing that the time and place of these events have almost an infinite probability of occurring without an intelligent cause.

The third problem is the fact that there are witnesses. God may have performed miracles incognito but these miracles were witnessed.

Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights!

And I'd like to add another to your list: namely, that many people cannot see the forest for the trees.

For example, DNA is a "tree." Information in the cosmos - both in relation to living things (e.g. DNA and language) and non-living things (e.g. physical laws and constants) - is a "forest."

Lurkers: information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.

There is no known origin for information in the universe.

Another example of a "tree" is self-organizing complexity in nature. The "forest" is that order cannot rise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system. Even at the root, the atheist must admit that space/time, physical causation and physical laws are guides to the system.

There is no physical origin for space/time and therefore physical causation.

Another example of a "tree" is randomness - stochastic methods are highly effective in physical sciences. The "forest" is that one cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

The number and types of dimensions (spatial, temporal) are both unknown and unknowable.

To put it another way, an observer may look at a "tree" and conclude it is not a miracle. But if he could see the "forest" - he probably would call it a miracle.

[Raycpa]

I have the same thoughts about ancient testimony as I do about contemporary testimony.

We have no other evidence other than "eyewitness". We can only know what our senses tell us or what others senses tell them. There is no such thing as evidence that is not "eyewitness".

Biblical evidence required to accept a verdict in law or to accept someone's testimony as true is much higher than our own courts of law. There must be at least three witnesses and self testimony is invalid. As you read about each biblical miracle you will note the presence of multiple witnesses. The authors knew their audience would not accept anything less.

[tacticalogic]

I don't see why one is exclusive of the other, do you?

The question was

"Do you agree that an event having the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation?"

You are submitting that you do not agree that an event that has the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation, because there are events in the Bible that cannot be explained by natural causes.

IOW, you're arguing that if any event has the initial appearance of being a miracle (ie happening contrary to known natural laws), then it must be one and there will never be a natural explanation for it, because the Bible describes events that can only be described as miracles.