anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism, so whenver valid criticisms are raised against the government supported faith....name calling and whining are the two biggest weapons in the humanist arsenal...
we see it on this thread many times.....
LOL
indeed
“anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism, so whenver valid criticisms are raised against the government supported faith....name calling and whining are the two biggest weapons in the humanist arsenal...we see it on this thread many times.....” ~ RAYGUNFAN
If quotes like the ones below seem to contradict each other to you, I would suggest that the subject under discussion is waaaaaaay more complicated than your “teachers” (religious or secular) have (ignorantly or otherwise) led you to believe. :)
QUOTE: “Evolution by natural selection in the classical senseunguided, with no transcendent agent to direct mutations along “certain beneficial lines,” as Asa Gray put it, hasn’t a clue about how to explain religionor mathematics, or philosophy, or our ability to do science, for that matter.
Evolution might or might not be able to account for the complexity of our brains, per se, but it’s mute and powerless to “explain” the higher products of our brains, which are of course by far the most complex objects yet known to us anywhere in the universe. Many agnostic and atheist philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists have stated this much in frank terms.
Our ability to do higher mathematics, for example, was utterly irrelevant to our survival in evolutionary termsour ancestors needed to know absolutely nothing about topology or fractals, manifolds or tensors, even differential calculus, in order to outwit mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. Nor did they need to know the profoundly shocking fact (from the point of view of naturalism) that mathematics of the kinds just mentioned is incredibly powerful for understanding the external worlda fact that just cries out for a deeper explanation. Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and company are flying into the face of the facts on this one.
We can not only do mathematics, but our mathematics actually matches the subtlest details of the external world.
How does this make any sense at all, if we aren’t in a very real sense created in the image of God, the divine mathematician (as Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus regarded God) who also created the external world?” ~ Ted Davis 3/24/08 Professor of the History of Science Web page: http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/
QUOTE: “See here if any of you find this objectionable http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl).
My patience has been exhausted. Rather than accept the fact that ID proponents have not stepped up to the plate this myth continues to be propogated. So, let me suggest one more avenue for the ID proponents to prove their point. Poll your colleagues ask them how many papers were rejected and from what journals. Summarize here with the number of researchers polled and the results. We can compare the rejection rates with people here that are not ID proponents. If I hear crickets, combining this with what I have previously presented it should be patently obvious to all that ID is truly a science stopper. ~ Rich Blinne
Thu, 3 Jul 2008 The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper Click “next in thread” http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200807/0067.html
QUOTE: “..I do have an idea for their [the Intelligent Design Movement] research program. Show how the evolutionary process is not random, not how it cannot happen. We can give them help here. This could be like the ‘95 Behe/Miller debate in reverse where Behe showed that Miller’s textbook claimed purposeless evolution and Miller knowing that evolution is not random in the popular sense fixed the error. It came back to bite him in the Dover trial where the old version was being used and Miller pointed to the new version. If the heart of the problem ID has is a random, purposeless, evolution, then we are here to help show how current, mainstream, evolutionary theory shows otherwise. It would require them to risk getting “expelled” by their YEC allies, though. ~ Rich Blinne Member ASA 04/24/2008 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/0583.html Other interesting conversation may be found here: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/
“anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism,”
You clearly don’t understand the difference between science and religion. Evolution, like all science, explains observed phenomena using natural processes. When observations (including those of the fossil record) don’t match the theory, a new theory is conceived. This is part of the “scientific method”.
Religion, on the other hand, invokes the “unknowable” and “supernatural”. In the face of observed facts that contradict religious dogma, that religion generally stridently insists that its dogma is correct, and the observations are wrong. Examples of this from history include the Church insisting that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Most Christian sects have admitted their error in these cases. One notable current issue of this nature is the insistence by some Christians that the Earth is only 5,000 years (or so) old. Numerous scientific evidence indicates that’s just not true...we’ll see if religion accepts reality once again.
Given the historical track record of religion vs. science on issues considered just as fundamental and important as evolution at the time, I invite you to consider the likely outcome.