A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[Dimensio]

Are you suggesting that an idea that has withstood 2000+ years of controversy and testing should be presented as if it were a wild-eyed hypothesis?

To what do you refer that has such a history?

[dominic7]

"Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic church supports the Theory of Evolution, as do most mainstream churches. They're believers in both a deity-originated creation, followed by speciation through the process of Evolution. The two are not incompatible in any way."

Could not agree more.

[js1138]

To what do you refer that has such a history?

I'm sure he wasn't referring to Christianity. Suggesting that ID is tied to religion would be the fastest way to torpedo it in the classroom.

I am intrigued by the notion of teaching comparitive religion in high school -- all 2000 of them on equal footing. All being put to the same kind of scrutiny as scientific theories.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Evolution was widely accepted before Darwin.

"Widely accepted" as in spread real thin around the globe. I wager more people have throughout history understood the universe and living creatures to be the creation of a higher being than have believed it to be a poofism of unguided causes. It remains so to this day. Not that numbers of believers effect the truth, however. Wide acceptance of a dogma is no argument for accepting the same as true.

Better science goes against the flow and tests everything. Too bad dogmatic evolutionists can't stand to see their pet theory put to the test. As a result great minds are wasted on frivolous pursuits as opposed to genuine scientific advancement. Asserting speciation by unintelligent causes as if it were an unassailable fact is unwise as far as a well-rounded education is concerned.

[js1138]

Tell me exactly what test evolution is being put to. What research is being done and by whom?

[BedRock]

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Life, version 6...

Ask Darwin about the importance of the "Creator"...

[js1138]

I'll offer you a deal. I won't deny the existence of a creator if you won't imply that you know, in infinite detail, how the creation works.

Science doesn't deal with creation. It deals with how things work. Without skepticism about claims of miracles, every one of the world's 2000 religions have an equal claim to truth.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Tell me exactly what test evolution is being put to. What research is being done and by whom?

Every time information is communicated from one entity to another with an outflow of function and purpose the Theory of Evolution is put to the test. Every time nature acts according to laws that have been around since recorded history began the Theory of Evolution is put to the test. When the universe disintegrates into nothing, then the forces behind the Theory of Evolution might be given further consideration, although no intelligence or design will be present to take note of it.

[Dataman]

Let's see if I have this straight: A great many people insist that the world was not created through intelligent design. Then the opposite must be true -- they believe that this highly complex world was created through unintelligent design. The quality of their thinking seems to prove their point.

Indubitably.

[js1138]

I realize your mind is capable of dazzling abstractions, but an example wouldn't hurt your case.

[js1138]

Assuming you are right, what is ID doing that can be taught in a science classroom? Give me a concrete example of the methodology if ID research.

[betty boop]

It's clear from your answers that even though you claim a sharp dividing line, you don't really know what that line is. You're in good company!

Actually, Nebullis, I can propose a basis for the "sharp dividing line," but it's not physical; it's informational, Shannon information. Living beings are such because they are at the receiving end of a successful communication that reduces uncertainty in the receiver. When they are no longer successfully communicating, life ends. This is being discussed at Plato

so I won't duplicate that effort here.

Shannon does not at all focus on the meaning (semiotic content) of the communication, nor does he stipulate its source (the sender). We can speculate about that. My thought is that the communication is directed to the organism to "tell it how" to modify its internal boundary conditions so as to store and harness thermodynamic entropy to biologically useful outcomes, rather than to entropic "heat death," effectively reversing, or at least postponing the inexorable slide towards the equilibrium that the second law predicts for physical systems. I think the communication may be carried/facilitated by a universal vacuum field, or as an astrophysicist friend has suggested, an "organic zero point field;" possibly the transmission of the communication is facilitated by particle (electron, photon) exchanges with the ZPF. It has been further suggested that DNA is a sort of "router" that enables the source of the communication to send it to the correct "address." It seems the information or communication source may not be located within the 4D block of familiar spacetime, but proceeds from an extra-dimensional source which may be geometrical. Clearly Einstein thought that at its ultimate basis, the universe is the expression of a geometry. So did Pythagoras and Plato, as it turns out.

I know it all sounds so sci-fi; but (not counting the hypothetical extra-dimensional/geometric basis, which he has not explicitly considered thus far), in addition to providing a fascinating description of the nature of life, the result of a wide-ranging collaboration with a number of first-rank thinkers in a broad range of scientific disciplines (you would readily recognize their names), particularly in the fields of thermodynamics and information theory, he's gotten it all boiled down to equations by now. I can't say much more about it, unfortunately, for the manuscript is a work-in-progress, in preparation for publication. But maybe you'd like to read the book when it comes out.

But I am really off-topic with this here. So please, anyone wishing to reply to this post, please do so on the Plato thread?

[js1138]

My thought is that the communication is directed to the organism to "tell it how" to modify its internal boundary conditions so as to store and harness thermodynamic entropy to biologically useful outcomes, rather than to entropic "heat death," effectively reversing, or at least postponing the inexorable slide towards the equilibrium that the second law predicts for physical systems.

Paint it any color you want, but this is vitalism.

[GSHastings]

They're actually attacking Abiogenesis theories, by people who are under the mistaken impression that Evolution and Abiogenesis are the same thing.

They are the same thing. Evolutionists just like to pretend that they are not.

The first "living" thing, would have been the first "species". Therefore, Evolution MUST explain the first living thing, if it is to be TRUE.

It fails miserably at that, as with the later origin of multiple species.

[DannyTN]

The following articles quotes some of the major evolutionists claims regarding abiogenesis.

Why abiogenesis is impossible.

Life from Life or not

[betty boop]

Paint it any color you want, but this is vitalism.

My word, js, I didn't realize you were such a hard-core nominalist!!!! You don't seem to see past the name....

js1138, you can call it whatever you want to. Personally, I find the physics interesting.

[Old Landmarks]

Okay, well put. I wasjust seeking clarity, for I have read in several threads where people really insisted that Darwinism and Evolution were not the same. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not, I agree.

I suppose everyone would agree that evolution should not be connected to abiogenesis when a textbook teaches students about evolution.

When I was in public school years ago, our biology textbooks said life began by a chance chemical reaction millions of years ago (paraphrasing).

We were shown films which taught evolution and which at the same time taught that life began in an ancient sea or a pool where lightning struck giving that needed spark of energy for a certain chemical reaction from which all life began.

This chance reaction led to what we are today, complex human and other complex life forms(suggesting natural processes are all that are needed).

Also it seems it is scientifically dishonest (or propaganda to some) for a Discovery Channel or a publicly funded PBS production etc.(promoted as scientific and believed by many viewers)to tie evolution in with phrases that say life began in a primordial soup (and they give the natural cause(s)) long, long ago.

If there was an uproar from evolutionists about this in the past, it certainly was not reflected in those same general periodicals (Time, Life, Look, N.G. etc.) which print articles about biological evolution, (as a rule, the passionate outrage from evolutionists was just not there)

This is probably why people think evolution begins in a non-living chemical soup long ago.

I have never once seen the ACLU sue a public school for teaching that life began by a chance chemical reaction long ago, even though they know children were taught that for years in public schools.

This suggests that the ACLU claim of neutrality is completely bogus; they only fool the willing.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, as I would eagerly read the details of that ACLU lawsuit.

[Dataman]

Still dishonestly asserting that evolution has ever tied itself to abiogenesis.

Evolution has never been able to separate itself from spontaneous generation, current attempt not withstanding. You do know about charlie's warm ponds, don't you?

Say that tomorrow, biologists determine that it is completely impossible for life to emerge from non-life. That abiogenesis is impossible

The hard core materialists cannot accede without destroying their philosophical basis. Abiogenesis is already impossible and you won't find many professionals who still hold to it. Atheists like yourself must realize the implications of admitting the truth so we expect that centuries later you will still be embracing the miracle of abiogenesis while, at the same time, denying the possibility of miracles altogether.

How does this falsify common descent?

It destroys materialism, the foundation of evolution (I've simplified the language so it will be easier to grasp):

Anything but spontaneous generation opens the door to the existence of God.

If God exists, then miracles are automatically possible (and atheists are in trouble).

If miracles are possible, materialism collapses: There is more to the universe than matter and its motion.

If materialism collapses, evolution has lost its philosophical foundation, the lens through which all the evidence is interpreted, and "a Divine foot gets in the door" (Lewontin).

Therefore the status of the statement,"The origin of man must have happened through common descent because there is no God and there are no miracles," changes from cross-your-fingers-and-hope, to absolutely false.

I'm sure that I won't get a logical or rational answer, but I'll ask anyway.

Since you are still in the habit of disparaging the intelligence of others, let me remind you that the atheist is among the most irrational in history. An intellectual would know that he is not omniscient yet would need to be in order to know with certainty that God did not exist. You are not omniscient so how do you know that God does not exist? You do not; you simply believe it by faith (or you are not an atheist and only claim to be one). Although agnosticism would not be entirely logical for a disbeliever, it would at least remove the difficulty of explaining why you know God does not exist.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Assuming you are right, what is ID doing that can be taught in a science classroom?

I'm afraid I must resort to dazzling abstractions once again.

The science classroom by its very nature demonstrates the ongoing process of ID. Not only does ID bring about the capacity for science, but, on occasion it becomes the subject of science itself, which, I suppose, is what you are asking me to point out.

I am not comfortable with ID as a subject for the science classroom. For millennia ID has operated in the background, as the very object of human reason and senses. To turn the object into the subject is, well, not very productive. If we really have to belabor the point that the universe demonstrates intelligent design at almost every observable point I can only say we've made ourselves purposely ignorant of the obvious.

But what is a "science classroom?" Is it a place where we sit the children down and tell them all together what the real world is really like, and if they do not tow the line they fail? What arrogant constraints the Theory of Evolution has placed upon the classroom!

Bastards.

[Dimensio]

Evolution has never been able to separate itself from spontaneous generation, current attempt not withstanding.

How can it seperate itself from something to which it was never tied in the first place?

The hard core materialists cannot accede without destroying their philosophical basis.

I'm not speaking of hardcore materialism, I'm speaking of the theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis is already impossible and you won't find many professionals who still hold to it.

Evidence for this assertion?

It destroys materialism, the foundation of evolution (I've simplified the language so it will be easier to grasp):

No, materialism is not the foundation of evolution, you shameless liar.

Anything but spontaneous generation opens the door to the existence of God.

Misleading statement. Implies that spontaneous generation occurs only if a God does not exist, which is not true. Everything, including spontaneous generation "opens the door to the existence of God".

If God exists, then miracles are automatically possible (and atheists are in trouble).

This I will concede is true, however you have not established that a God must necessarily exist if spontaneous generation is impossible.

That's one "maybe".

If miracles are possible, materialism collapses: There is more to the universe than matter and its motion.

Since evolution isn't materialism -- in spite of your lies to the contrary -- I don't see your point.

If materialism collapses, evolution has lost its philosophical foundation, the lens through which all the evidence is interpreted, and "a Divine foot gets in the door" (Lewontin).

Only in as much as all science loses the "lens through which all the evidence is interpreted", which means that the implications for evolution are the same as the implications for gravity. But you won't admit that, because you only want to trash evolution, so you give evolution some special "ultra-materialistic" position that absolutely requires the nonexistence of the supernatural, even though the theory does not require any such thing.

Of course, the fact that the possibility of miracles means that our observations are potentially inaccurate does not falsify evolution. It is possible that our observations are accurate even though miracles are possible.

So that's another "maybe". "Maybe" our observations are inaccurate...but then again, maybe not.

Therefore the status of the statement,"The origin of man must have happened through common descent because there is no God and there are no miracles," changes from cross-your-fingers-and-hope, to absolutely false.

If evolution were founded upon such a statement, you would have a point. It is not, however, so you do not.

And if you're going to assert that evolution does have such a foundation, I'll thank you to support the assertion rather than just insisting that you know more about the theory than actual biologists who don't seem to have heard of that particular caveat.

Since you are still in the habit of disparaging the intelligence of others, let me remind you that the atheist is among the most irrational in history.

Oh, boy. Another arrogant jerk who thinks that he's read my mind.

An intellectual would know that he is not omniscient yet would need to be in order to know with certainty that God did not exist

I don't know with certainty that there are no gods. I do, however, wonder why you use the term "God", which implies a specific, pre-defined entity rather than the generic term "deities". It's like you've somehow discerned that a deity does exist, and not only that, you know which one it is. Are you omniscient?

You are not omniscient so how do you know that God does not exist?

I don't. I simply lack belief because, thus far, I've not had reason to believe such a thing. i'm one of those rational people who doesn't buy every unsupported assertion tossed to me. I also don't know for certain that Zeus, Brahman, Odin, Baal, Kali, Ra or Tlazolteotl don't exist. Can you say the same?