Dissent from Darwinism

[stephen]

Growing subterranean dissent from Darwinism

Stephen Meyer, one of the founders of the intelligent design theory, spoke at a Socrates in the City lecture in New York on Thursday evening, explaining his newest book Darwin’s Doubt and the latest in scientific debates over the origin of life. The room was packed with New Yorkers in snappy evening wear, as well as the famous journalist Tom Wolfe, in his signature white suit.

Intelligent design (ID), counter to its popular portrayal, is not an idea from “insecure religious fundamentalists,” Meyer said, but the scientific theory that all the data in the universe points to “a mind not a material process.”

Meyer himself believes that mind is the Christian God, but he said as ID spread in the scientific community, scientists are developing different intelligent design–based theories. He said the purely materialistic view of the world, which has ruled the scientific community since the 19th century, is beginning to break apart.

“There’s a huge disparity between the public presentation of evolution [in the media] and what’s going on in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” he said. Meyer noted that in the last few years there have been six new theories introduced in evolutionary biology.

“It’s a story that hasn’t been told,” he said. “There is a growing subterranean dissent from Darwinism.” The growing knowledge about the complex engineering of cells and circuitry in animals, Meyer said, is “what’s generating a lot of skepticism.”

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/growing_subterranean_dissent_from_darwin...

 

[james1523]

Growing subterranean dissent from Darwinism

Stephen Meyer, one of the founders of the intelligent design theory, spoke at a Socrates in the City lecture in New York on Thursday evening, explaining his newest book Darwin’s Doubt and the latest in scientific debates over the origin of life. The room was packed with New Yorkers in snappy evening wear, as well as the famous journalist Tom Wolfe, in his signature white suit.

Intelligent design (ID), counter to its popular portrayal, is not an idea from “insecure religious fundamentalists,” Meyer said, but the scientific theory that all the data in the universe points to “a mind not a material process.”

Meyer himself believes that mind is the Christian God, but he said as ID spread in the scientific community, scientists are developing different intelligent design–based theories. He said the purely materialistic view of the world, which has ruled the scientific community since the 19th century, is beginning to break apart.

“There’s a huge disparity between the public presentation of evolution [in the media] and what’s going on in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” he said. Meyer noted that in the last few years there have been six new theories introduced in evolutionary biology.

“It’s a story that hasn’t been told,” he said. “There is a growing subterranean dissent from Darwinism.” The growing knowledge about the complex engineering of cells and circuitry in animals, Meyer said, is “what’s generating a lot of skepticism.”

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/growing_subterranean_dissent_from_darwin...

An issue with these scientists, creationist, God-believing or otherwise, think that God went through some kind of step by step process or effort in order to create the universe. But the bible says it was created by His Word. God spoke and it all happened, God did not exert any effort or break a sweat, because He is all-powerful. God spoke and it just happened. He did not speak, and then do this and that, and then this happened, resulting in this and causing that. That's how scientists think, those that think God caused certain processes to happen, rather than creating everything out of nothing simply by speaking a word. Scientists (God-believing or otherwise) say God spoke, causing this process and this to happen, resulting in this), but the Bible says God spoke and it was. And not only did He create, but He wove Himself into the creation. God Himself is in the fabric of His creation. God is the mysterious thing which holds every atom together and which keeps all planets in their orbits, by which if one of them should move out of orbit, the whole universe would collapse. Scientists can explain the effect of gravity but they cannot explain what is gravity and where does it come from.

 

[Brother Paul]

Actually when God said let there be light and there was light, He then describes 6 cycles of Creation...for example in one, He creates (bara - calls forth) creatures of the sea but then says "Let the sea being forth creatures after its kind...so we know God did not require "effort" and we know He did not require "process" but it appears that He sovereignly chose to utilize these...when He creates (bara) mankind He creates them male and female, but in the description of when and how He made (yatzar - to give form to) them, He makes the male first and then the female by a process (sleep to Adam, takes His rib and forms the woman)....all this is quite effortless for God but process was definitely involved according to the word.

Take Genesis 2:4 for another example, it says these are the generations of the heavens and the earth "in the day that the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth". Here day (yom) is used to describe all six days (also yom) of the process of His unfolding what He had created, bringing it into being....now this is not an argument for the meaning and usages of the word we translate "day" but each of the six days goes through a cycle of evening (darkness or less order) to morning (light or higher order)...He gathers the firmament and then divides it, etc.,

And I like the way Stephen expressed His holding it all together....in Him we live and move and have our being...

Just some thoughts

Brother Paul

 

[DHC]

Hello all.

One of the problems that science faces in attempting to understand the Genesis
of life. Is that Science needs to make certain assumptions and also is limited to
observational criteria. Science assumes firstly that there was no divine input into the
creation of life itself. So on the basis of that first assumption any theory generated
to explain an evolution of life is seriously flawed.

Science in my view fails to offer any suitable explanation for the origin of life, although
I have a mild interest in other areas of science. God states that He created life in Genesis
so I reject outright the ill informed conjecture of science regarding creation.

The THEORY of evolution will as far as I can see, remain a theory for a very long time to come.
Evidence is the required criteria for the theory to progress to a law of science, and the evidence
in the last two centuries for evolution is inadequate.

 

[will]

Sounds like a book I'd add to my library.
Thanks for the pointer.

If you'd like to see a similar perspective from an atheist author, I could recommend "Genesis Enigma" by Andrew Parker, in which the author acknowledged the correctness of the sequence of creation in the book of Genesis as compared to the latest scientific discoveries. While full of nods to the theory of evolution, the main thrust of the book is a question, on how the ancient hebrew writer of Genesis could have known the correct sequence of how the world came to be. And that, as the author said himself, is probably one of the strongest proof that there exists a divine source of knowledge.

 

[GeoFestiva]

I'm starting to see theory being thrown around a lot, and I'd like to clean that up a little bit. A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Evolution, like gravity, is a theory because it has yet to be dis-proven. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.

Scientific laws are not usually used throughout biology. For example, there is no "Law of Death" where everything that lives must die at some point. Of the few laws in biology, you can look up Taylor's law, which provides some of the math needed for evolution and survival to occur.

(preliminary post - there's more I'd like to write but do not have the time currently)

 

[DHC]

I'm starting to see theory being thrown around a lot, and I'd like to clean that up a little bit. A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Evolution, like gravity, is a theory because it has yet to be dis-proven. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.

Scientific laws are not usually used throughout biology. For example, there is no "Law of Death" where everything that lives must die at some point. Of the few laws in biology, you can look up Taylor's law, which provides some of the math needed for evolution and survival to occur.

(preliminary post - there's more I'd like to write but do not have the time currently)

Hello GeoFestiva

Not sure whether I would agree with your claim that 'evolution is a fact'.
Have a read of the following and get back to me.

Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Perhaps the most prominent example in this category is the hypothesis that mutation and natural selection produce continuous genetic improvement in a population of higher plants or animals. For the past 90 years, scientists in the field of population genetics have developed sophisticated mathematical models to describe and investigate these processes and how they affect the genetic makeup of populations of various categories of organisms. The work of R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright between 1918 and 1932 laid the foundation for the field of population genetics. This work in turn, over a period of about a decade (1936-1947), led to the formulation of what is referred to as the neo-Darwinian synthesis or the modern evolutionary synthesis. This so-called modern synthesis integrated the concept of natural selection with Mendelian genetics to produce the unified theory of evolution that has been accepted by most professional biologists.

But does this theory of evolution, formulated essentially in its present form more than 60 years ago, truly deliver on its claims, especially in light of what we now know of how living systems work at the molecular level? The answer is an unequivocal no! In brief, the proteins that make up living systems require such a precise level of specification to be functional that a search based on random mutation can never succeed.2 It is complete scientific foolishness to claim otherwise. That is why there are no papers in the professional genetics literature that explicitly demonstrate this to be a reasonable possibility.

Perhaps even more surprising, natural selection does not deliver the sort of upward genetic improvement that is generally believed and claimed. The reason is that natural selection is "blind" to the vast majority of mutations--it cannot act upon a favorable mutation to accentuate it or a deleterious mutation to eliminate it unless the mutation has a sufficiently large effect on the fitness of the organism in its environment. Because the vast majority of mutations are below the threshold for natural selection to detect, most bad mutations accumulate unhindered by the selection process, resulting in a downward decline in fitness from one generation to the next.4,5 Because bad mutations outnumber favorable ones by such a large factor, their cumulative effect utterly overwhelms that of the few favorable mutations that may arise along the way.

For more than 30 years, professional population geneticists have been aware of the profound difficulties these realities present to the theory of evolution. These problems were treated as "trade secrets" to be researched within their own ranks but not to be publicized outside in the broader biology community. Thus, the crucial
step of hypothesis testing has been "postponed."

Most professional biologists have therefore been misled into believing that the theoretical foundation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis is secure when, in reality, the foundation is a sham. The neo-Darwinian mechanism can readily be shown to produce exactly the opposite consequences to those that are believed and claimed. The reason for this state of affairs is that the scientists involved have allowed their personal biases to interfere with and to short circuit the usual hypothesis-testing step of the scientific method.

 

[RJ]

I am not an evolutionist and I am not a creationist, I am both at the same time..
I am practicle and my God-given common sense tells me that there is overwhelming evidence for both to some degree.
Does fossil records prove that man is older than 6 thousand years, sure seems so.
Did God make the world in 6 days, if he says so....but what exactly is his 6 days?

I am a Christian and Jesus lives in me, no matter what and that is final!
I know that God gave us the power to reason and I reason that when I die and God glorifies me in his presence, I will know for sure and it is reasonable that all of it will fit together quite nicely..
I really don't think about it much and it does not concern me much.
In the meantime...do you know anyone who doesn't know Jesus?

 

[GeoFestiva]

Alright finally able to sit down and reply.

The argument is living systems require such a precise level of specification to be functional that a search based on random mutation can never succeed, or more basic, the complexity of our systems are too fragile. If it was clearly foolish, then the re-visitation of the theory should have shown this. There are peer reviewed papers on the subjects. I was able to find a few with a quick google search, and many are cited within wikipedia articles (including one specific to what he states: Nature 183, 710-713 (14 March 1959) | <abbr title="Digital Object Identifier">doi</abbr>:10.1038/183710a0). I figured somebody may ask for citations.

Another of his claims; however, that bad mutations outnumber favorable ones by such a large factor, has little to no backing by peer reviewed academia. I was able to find one by H.J. Mullet stating 99% were bad, but further reading showed that these were synthetically altered by radiation, which brings in new uncontrolled variables.

@RJ, I don't know many people who haven't heard about Jesus, but probably know as much about him as we do of Buddha or Mohamed.

 

[RJ]

Alright finally able to sit down and reply.

The argument is living systems require such a precise level of specification to be functional that a search based on random mutation can never succeed, or more basic, the complexity of our systems are too fragile. If it was clearly foolish, then the re-visitation of the theory should have shown this. There are peer reviewed papers on the subjects. I was able to find a few with a quick google search, and many are cited within wikipedia articles (including one specific to what he states: Nature 183, 710-713 (14 March 1959) | <abbr title="Digital Object Identifier">doi</abbr>:10.1038/183710a0). I figured somebody may ask for citations.

Another of his claims; however, that bad mutations outnumber favorable ones by such a large factor, has little to no backing by peer reviewed academia. I was able to find one by H.J. Mullet stating 99% were bad, but further reading showed that these were synthetically altered by radiation, which brings in new uncontrolled variables.

@RJ, I don't know many people who haven't heard about Jesus, but probably know as much about him as we do of Buddha or Mohamed.

No matter what you think, there is no comparison between Buddha/Mohamed with Christ. You can't be a Christian or you wouldn't have compared false Gods to Jesus Christ. To be Christian, is to have Christ in you, something no other God can do and you would know that.
We either are seeking Jesus Christ or talking about him here at T.J. . It is not edifying to talk of some other God.

I respect your training and scientific knowledge and power to reason but as a Christian, I know that our God is the father of all science. Man has found no scientific truth that God Jehova hadn't already constructed or set up at the foundation of the universe and knew we would have this conversation....analyze that!...Lol!

 

[GeoFestiva]

You asked me if I knew people who did not know Jesus. What I was trying to say was I do not know people who haven't heard of Jesus, but I do know people who claim Jesus to be a false god.

It's absolutely true that man nor god has presented testable evidence about our creation. Scientists can go back to the big bang theory, and those who are religious can go to their texts and stories. And we'd be back to the questions of "what created the big bang?" or "What created God?"

I used to be Catholic, and spent a good amount of time going to bible studies, as I grew older I found no use for religion. I think religion is good for some people, but some Christians are setting bad examples for other Christians by trying to fight with scientists in their home field. Just because evolution exists doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

 

[RJ]

You asked me if I knew people who did not know Jesus. What I was trying to say was I do not know people who haven't heard of Jesus, but I do know people who claim Jesus to be a false god.

It's absolutely true that man nor god has presented testable evidence about our creation. Scientists can go back to the big bang theory, and those who are religious can go to their texts and stories. And we'd be back to the questions of "what created the big bang?" or "What created God?"

I used to be Catholic, and spent a good amount of time going to bible studies, as I grew older I found no use for religion. I think religion is good for some people, but some Christians are setting bad examples for other Christians by trying to fight with scientists in their home field. Just because evolution exists doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

• That is what I was saying, to what ever degree evolution and God exist together.
• To say God exists is one thing but, to see my side of God and as Jesus, you must be a true Christian with Christ in you. Not being a Christian like this, anything I could say is pure folly to you.
• You seem like a very nice person and want respect for your education and knowledge and, no question you have deserved that!
• But, I remind you again, this is a Talk Jesus forum. Your believing or not believing in a God is fine and your right but, any persuit to negate or purposely ignore the existence of Jesus Christ will eventually cause you problems here.

 

[Chad]

Just because evolution exists doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Couple of questions for you personally Geo:
1. Do you believe in the big bang theory, that it all happened from "nothing"?
2. Do you believe humans evolved from monkeys (as an evolutionist)?

 

[Chad]

I think religion is good for some people, but some Christians are setting bad examples for other Christians by trying to fight with scientists in their home field

Well, that could be true but it doesn't dictate any truths about GOD Himself, nor the Bible anyway. An example, if one cop is bad, are all cops bad? No. Same with Christians. Plus, it works the other way around too. Scientists / evolutionists who are strictly that and atheists, many themselves are adamant about disproving GOD / Bible to us Christians.

 

[GeoFestiva]

Couple of questions for you personally Geo:
1. Do you believe in the big bang theory, that it all happened from "nothing"?
2. Do you believe humans evolved from monkeys (as an evolutionist)?

1.) No,
I believe that the universe expanded (more like exploded) from a singular point in the universe and has continued to expand some 14 billion years later. Before that there could've been another universe, as of now we will never know, but we are pretty sure that whatever happened before that could not affect what happened after.

2.) No,
We did not evolve from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor, our cousins in the tree would be monkeys, with apes and gorillas being more like our stepbrothers or something.

That probably raises more questions than answers them, but I wanted to be accurate with what I believe happened.

 

[DHC]

1.) No,
I believe that the universe expanded (more like exploded) from a singular point in the universe and has continued to expand some 14 billion years later. Before that there could've been another universe, as of now we will never know, but we are pretty sure that whatever happened before that could not affect what happened after.

2.) No,
We did not evolve from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor, our cousins in the tree would be monkeys, with apes and gorillas being more like our stepbrothers or something.

That probably raises more questions than answers them, but I wanted to be accurate with what I believe happened.

I believe that the universe expanded (more like exploded) from a singular point in the universe and has continued to expand some 14 billion years later. Before that there could've been another universe, as of now we will never know, but we are pretty sure that whatever happened before that could not affect what happened after.

Hello GeoFestiva.

Talk Jesus is a good place to learn so much. I read your statements above
and see that you are a believer, 'I believe that'. Yes GeoFestiva that is what
the bottom line is all about, what you believe!

You actually believe in an ideology GeoFestiva probably without realizing it.

This cosmic ideology is that if we observe the present universe it will tell us about
the past universe. This is an assumption GeoFestiva, that may or may not be true.
Scientists of course assume that what they observe now directly results from past events.
Alas, I am afraid to say that we cannot know the past unless we make assumptions.
It is in the assumptions that occurs the fundamental weakness of all scientific pursuit.

We really cannot know anything about the past unless we accept the assumption base.
Hence, if you accept the assumption that the past is visible in the present. And that God
does not influence any events or even create the events themselves. Then you are a
believer in the ideology that underlies science.

I have not the ability to able to make this primary assumption that God does not play dice.
As I do not possess absolute knowledge, thus if I must assume anything then I risk error.

Assume nothing and discard all assumptions, is the safest bet in the game.
Do not be found to be on the last day, a fanatical believer in an ideology.
That really had nothing to do with the true purpose for life.

 

[GeoFestiva]

This is the observable science vs historical science. If we were to run with that idea and extrapolate it. Then everything that happened before we were born must be taken into question. Jesus may not have existed because we were not there to see him. Same with the Bible. Since we were not there when it was written then we must not assume it to be correct.

The way I think about nature. Is it to has history books written not with paper, but with rock in the fossils. I can check where and how fossils have been deposited, but to believe in historical science, we must be able to show that natural laws can be changed dramatically through the years.

I know this post was a bit rough on religion, but I want to drive the point home that historical science is not the way to go about explaining things.

 

[DHC]

This is the observable science vs historical science. If we were to run with that idea and extrapolate it. Then everything that happened before we were born must be taken into question. Jesus may not have existed because we were not there to see him. Same with the Bible. Since we were not there when it was written then we must not assume it to be correct.

Hello GeoFestiva.

There is a distinction between human recorded history, which is fairly reliable, and the
ancient geological record. Human history is verifiable from usually a number of
different sources. For example all scholars accept the existence and the crucifixtion of
Jesus Christ. Because two historians, one Roman and one Jewish, recorded both the birth
and death of Jesus Christ. In addition we have first and second century letters written
about Jesus Christ from numerous Christian sources. Jesus Christ's past existence is
beyond the realm of debate.

Whereas geological history requires the acceptance of a certain assumptions. Here is one
of the main assumptions geologists make; the principle of "uniformitarianism"
that processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as
now operate today. How do we know that processes in the past were conducted at the
same rate and timing? We do not know this and it must be assumed. This also is exactly the
same assumption that cosmology is forced to make. Since if we do not assume all past
physics were uniform then we can learn nothing about the past.

So what can we now about the ages of strata, or how old is the earth itself, without
assuming anything? The answer is the dating is unknown and cannot be known,
assumptions are critical.

Ultimately the dating depends on how readily you will accept certain assumptions!

If you are a 'believer' then were talking hundreds of millions of years for the earth.

If your skeptical like myself then the age of the earth is impossible to calculate.

I once read somewhere that the fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils.
Somewhat circular it seems but we do have radiometric dating now. But alas we also
need to hold assumptions when we employ radiometric dating. There is no escape from
these annoying assumptions. You can either accept or reject assumptions and you are
free to choose.

 

[GeoFestiva]

You are telling me not to assume things about history, yet you are assuming that written history is true. You were not there to witness the records written, thus we cannot assume they are correct.

 

[Chad]

You are telling me not to assume things about history, yet you are assuming that written history is true. You were not there to witness the records written, thus we cannot assume they are correct.

That would apply to your beliefs as well.

The bible has ample proof on the other hand:
Fulfilled prophecies
Miracles
Presence of God in a believers life
Archaeological discoveries
Consistency of all 66 books authored by the Holy Spirit

The above is a small portion of proof. For more, check out the evidence and prophecy forum.

It's 2014. What happened 2014 years ago that globally the time is based off of?