Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
Is that short enough for you drive-by "philosophers" to understand?
Modern science arose when Christian theism dedivinized nature. In speaking of modern science I was referring to what it has been devolving into since the time of Hume, the mechanists, materialists, etc.
Science was fated to fall back into magic as soon as men removed the transcendent Creator from the picture, for either He is divine or nature is divine.
The ‘new’ science as represented by Depak Chopra, quantum physics, green environmentalism, transhumanism, spiritual humanism, James Lovelock, and powerful UN insiders such as Robert Muller is definitely spiritual. Materialist Darwinism is out and Telhard de Chardin’s Omega Point in. After millions of years, God is “emerging” out of matter resulting in the spiritualization of the temporal.
Ultimately, it matters not what Darwinists believe or want. Their days are numbered. Nature is being redivinized and evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins will either get on board or go down in flames.
You are being disingenuous. Since your last statement indicates understanding. The point is that if the cell dies, it was a stress. If it does not die, it wasn't a stress. Be that as it may, the signaling process must already have been established prior to the stress for there to be a response to the stress, my point. Google James A. Shapiro.
Indicating a directed and purposeful response, not an accident.
bkmk
Read the rest - but they lose a lot of their ability to survive “normal” conditions due to their damaged genetic structure.
Yet I wonder how many would continue in their research if they could not feed so heavily on the federal gov grants and the like.
Would it not improve science if say they had to secure and/or provide their own private funding?
Cell stress does not equal cell death.
Yes, the signaling process is established in the genetics of the cell prior to the stress. Because you think every stress means cell death I can see why you would be confused and ignorant enough to think that made some sort of point for you - but it doesn't.
Bacteria alive today are the descendants of many billions of ancestors who had proficient stress responses that enabled them to NOT DIE during stress.
One of these stress response genes is an error prone DNA polymerase.
Now why do you suppose a bacteria would have an error prone DNA polymerase that would be expressed during stress?
I do not rely upon federal government grants and the like for my research. While federal funding for large projects like Moon landings and Particle Accelerators and the like are somewhat justified because of the size and nature of the endeavor - I am for private funding of scientific research.
I noticed you claimed that error prone DNA polymerase imply a stored collection of rejected mutations employed as a survival mechanism.
You claimed to have previously answered my question about error prone DNA polymerase.
With your response you clearly show that you STILL don't even understand the question.
Where do you think a bacteria stores this collection of rejected mutations?
Have you come up with a single example of a large genome species that went extinct due to mutation yet?
Have you questioned your beliefs that are obviously in conflict with reality and not at all backed by evidence yet?
You should.
No clearly it does not bother me that my answer does not fit what you are looking for...
Simply put
IT IS STILL BACTERIA!!!
You are almost there - but your Creationist paradigm once again cripples your understanding.
That bacteria under stress that mutates rapidly through expression of error prone DNA polymerase and survives the stress has not “lost” permanently the previous ability to thrive at “normal” environment - and survival is not “temporary” if any single member of that population is able to mutate and survive and give rise to a new population.
Survival is a long term permanent benefit.
Being able to survive a stress through mutation of the genome is a long term permanent benefit.
If that prior stress is removed and the bacteria is under stress in a “normal” environment - can you guess what it would do?
Why it would express error prone DNA polymerase and rapidly mutate to survive the stress of the “normal” environment.
And I repeat to you what I said before.
Only a fool would think it would be anything other than a bacteria after a few days of expressing error prone DNA polymerase.
Now where does is “store” these mutations?
I really want to know just how wacky your model of living things are.
Do they carry around previous mutations in a tote bag?
Only a fool would believe what you claim.
If the bacteria evolved into a new life form why then you’d have proof of macro-evolution. Which you clearly do not.
I am not saying that error prone DNA polymerase is going to change them from a bacteria to a non-bacteira - but it could, and no doubt has, led to different strains of bacteria from the same common ancestry.
What I am saying is that a bacteria under stress has a mechanism to INCREASE its mutation rate.
Now why do you think a bacteria under stress increasing its mutation rate would lead to better chances of survival?
Obviously the bacteria stress response is at odds with your view of mutations and what they can and cannot do.
Does this make you question your ignorant assumptions about mutations?
It should.
Where do bacteria “store” these mutations?
What is the evidence that large genome species go extinct due to mutation? Do you even have a single example?
Are you embarrassed by how badly your views line up with reality?
You should be.
No, it’s still a question whose interpretation is accepted.
If stress causes lots of changes in a short amount of time then 6-10k years may be sufficient [which iirc is something you ridicule the creation viewpoint for - not enough time in thousands of years to accomplish the wide variety of life forms]. Yet science can not repeat even thousands of years in the lab.
And before you begin ridiculing this idea keep in mind 90% of all life forms are evident in the fossil record [’billions’ of years in long ages viewpoint for the ‘cambrian’ explosion] fully developed.
Six to ten thousand years is not enough time for what?
I know that a few thousand years is not enough time to explain the wide variety of species we see upon the Earth if you think they all came from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions.
So what mechanism would you use to explain how we went from a few species a few thousand years ago to the innumerable species we have today? Do you think you don't need a physical mechanism to explain it? Either way - if this is your paradigm then you believe in evolution, speciation, and the (semi) common descent of species - and at a rate and with a power well beyond that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.
Why wouldn't the fossils of extinct species be “fully developed”?
An Australopithocine is not a undeveloped human being - it is a “fully developed” Australopithocine. A flying squirrel is not a undeveloped flying creature - it is a “fully developed” gliding arboreal mammal.
The ark had dimensions and shape similar to a modern day barge, would barely fit on a football field and be about 4 stories tall.
Here’s a description from Dr. Walt Brown PhD from his online website creationscience.com:
a. A boat large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animalperhaps 16,000 animals in all. (Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans. Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way.)
b. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
c. Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.)
Wow. Do you give proper credit to Darwin when you use his theory?
Do you still hold that speciation (macro-evolution) doesn't happen or is mathematically impossible? Hate to break it to you - but a dingo and a jackal deriving from a common ancestor is about as macro as it gets.
A dingo and a jackal differ in DNA quite a bit more than a human and a chimpanzee.
Why do you suppose a greater change in DNA is quite possible and easily explainable in describing the common ancestry of a jackal and a dingo - but not at all applicable in describing the relatively smaller change in DNA between a chimpanzee and a human?
Do you question why your views are such a self conflicting mess at complete odds with reality?
You should.
Do you not understand English? I answered that. The cell does not have arms and legs to build shelters. It must use itself to muster a defense. It is part of the previously established stress response.
You obviously have no interest in attempting to listen to any concept counter to your preconceptions because you did not avail yourself of the opportunity of seeking who James A. Shapiro was. Well, here is a link to an 1:38 minute lecture taking to task your simplistic views. James A. Shapiro - Revisiting evolution in the 21st Century
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2010.WorksOfTheMind.pdf
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdf
I can see why you would be confused and ignorant enough to think that made some sort of point for you - but it doesn't.
That is because you are the one confused. The DNA polymerase in no way is directly involved in the actual response made to the stress. It allows a response to be made. It is akin to providing the paper for "War and Peace".
Anyway, listen to the lecture. The process is established prior to the stress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.