Posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:29 PM PDT by Moseley
The stakes are higher than most conservatives realize. When the fraud of man-made global warming finally dies, folks will start thinking: What else were we lied to about? How could the high priests of modern knowledge have confidently insisted something that was never remotely plausible?
A key element of progressivism is having wise philosopher-kings who make benevolent decisions for the masses. It is a core element of conservatism that you can make decisions for yourself. But for progressives, it is essential to convince the public that the designated authorities know better than you do, including what to eat, how to raise your kids, how to educate children, whom to vote for, etc.
Who will control society is up for grabs. The entire progressive religion depends upon maintaining public belief that their self-declared experts are all-knowing. Conformity is more important than truth. So desperate Warmists are intensifying their efforts even as their argument collapses in full view of everyone.
But a scientist with an opinion is not a scientist. A real scientist is cheerfully open to being proven wrong, eager for discovery more than for satisfying his ego. Many of the most important discoveries were not what a researcher was expecting. A scientist will have suspicions and a working hypothesis, but only with an open mind.
Instead, modern science has become a festival of speculation. Progressives simply speculate about what might be true and then read tea leaves for any hint consistent with their imagination.
We have special-effects television shows about dinosaurs showing the coloring of dinosaurs whose skin we have never seen and the sounds they make which we have never heard. Science shows tell us that the mother dinosaur is starting to worry that day about the storm approaching, and that the young dinosaurs are feeling playful.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So true, I did bert. So thank you for putting time back into the picture.
What Darwinist macroevolution proposes depends implicitly on the presupposition of an eternal universe. That is, a universe without a beginning in time, one that just rolls on forever, without end. If time is "infinite," then even the most "chancy" things will happen in Nature sooner or later. This presupposition is never challenged, never questioned, by Neo-Darwinists.
And yet VERY CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS is amassing evidence that the universe did, indeed, have a beginning in time. Evidently, many evolutionary biologists don't think it's necessary or desirable to notice such findings, as being irrelevant to the biological sciences. That's another very interesting presupposition... one advanced by no less an eminence than the late, great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr.
Thanks for writing, bert!
Again: oh come on. "Darwinist macroeveolution" is concerned with what has happened on this planet. No one thinks this planet has been around forever, so obviously Darwinists accept the idea that evolution had a beginning--in which case, there's no need to presuppose an eternal universe. Eternal or bounded, it doesn't matter.
The leap in complexity from one book to the next, in your analogy, would be immense.
Perhaps it would be a stronger example to suggest that through transcription errors one great book in English would become a well-known great book in a completely different language.
A part of the problem with evolution is the very simple, yet very powerful, bias of hindsight.
Looking back in hindsight, it seems obvious that animal A might benefit from being transformed into animal B.
But during the supposed evolutionary process, the process is BLIND.
By definition, there is no intelligence driving the evolutionary process.
So if you take away the benefit of hindsight, the mutations have no way of knowing that heading in the direction of animal B will produce a benefit.
Each tiny mutation step is BLIND and DUMB (unguided by any intelligence).
This means that:
1) The next mutation step is as likely to take the animal BACKWARDS to where it was before as to take it “forward” to a more beneficial direction.
2) The next mutation step is as likely to take the animal in an IRRELEVANT, unhelpful direction which takes the adaptation in the “wrong” direction.
3) The next mutation step is as likely to involve some other aspect of the animal that has absolutely nothing to do with the line of development that we think we see in hindsight.
4) The next mutation step does not “KNOW” that it is going in an advantageous or beneficial direction.
Each mutation step is highly likely to be a LESS viable intermediate form, leading to extinction of the line.
The original animal A is viable.
The new animal B is viable and possibly better suited to survival.
However, the intermediate steps BETWEEN A and B are LESS viable and the line will die out from extinction before A can develop into B.
That is because the evolutionary process “KNOWS” NOTHING and has no intelligence guiding it.
Evolutionists implicitly assume that the evolutionary process “KNOWS” where it is heading and “KNOWS” that the end result will be more beneficial.
Looking backwards, they are unable to separate their view of the outcome from what circumstances and pressures each intermediate mutation faces along the way.
ARE CONSERVATIVES HUMAN? EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND POLITICAL BELIEF
ABSTRACT: …If political belief is, as recent twin studies suggest, genetically rooted, it is also physiological. It pertains, therefore, to the realm of evolutionary biology and must serve an adaptive function. I argue that the traits associated with conservatism would have been more adaptive in early human history, while the traits associated with liberals served an adaptive function as humans formed large settled communities requiring more cooperative behavior.
So very true, dearest sister in Christ, and the earth is rather new in the history of the universe. There simply was not enough time for the atheist hope that ‘any that can happen did.’
As I said before, the ancients were able to predict the motion of bodies in space--the ones they could see, anyway--long before Newton. Also, Newton's Laws wouldn't help us determine their motion unless we knew their mass. In reality, the process is the opposite of what you state: we agree that Newton's Law is correct, we observe the motion of bodies, and thereby we calculate their mass.
"Accepted science" is a contradiction in terms....Questioning everything is the heart of science.
Nonsense. Yes, science begins by asking questions. But at some point, we agree that one of the possible answers appears to be pretty much correct, so we "accept" it as accurate and move on from there. At that point, we can start investigating the details of how the accepted answer operates in practice, but for the most part we don't keep going back and asking the original question all over again. Doctors don't keep questioning germ theory; geologists don't continue to wonder what causes earthquakes; and biologists aren't still questioning the theory of evolution. Sure, some maverick might overturn any of those by re-asking the original question and coming up with a different, better answer--like Copernicus did to Ptolemy--and more power to them. But in the meantime, some theories are "accepted science"--as they should be.
The last thing I'll say is to repeat that I'm glad actual scientists don't feel constrained by the limits you try to put on them, or there's be vast areas of knowledge we just wouldn't have.
You do realize that the person you're quoting is not a scientist but a novelist and writing teacher in a university's Department of Film and Media Arts, right?
"Would you like to talk about Dawkins?" he continues – and when I say yes, he laughs. "I hesitate to do this because he's such a popular guy, but Dawkins is not a scientist. He's a writer on science and he hasn't participated in research directly or published in peer-reviewed journals for a long time. In other words, there is no Wilson-versus-Dawkins controversy: it's Wilson versus … well, I could give you a goodly list of other scientists doing peer-reviewed research."Regardless, there are other Darwinian stories explaining; rape , murder
- E.O. Wilson
Not really. They know about the rules of evidence in a courtroom, but that's not even close to the same thing.
So what? That's one of his hobby-horses. But he's not a scientist, and to claim that his musings on the matter are in any way representative of "Neo-Darwinist" scientists is dishonest.
Some don’t believe Dawkins to be a ‘scientist’
So what? Because Wilson thinks Dawkins is more of a science writer than a scientist, that means the thoughts of a novelist are representative of scientists? How does that follow?
along with ‘after-the-fact’ stories.
Any attempt to figure out why things are the way they are is an "after-the-fact" story. The theory of solar system formation is an after-the-fact story. The notion that the continents used to be all jammed together and have since drifted apart is an after-the-fact story. Heck, Genesis is an after-the-fact story. It's not really much of a criticism.
And your problem with that is...? Is that a question that shouldn't be asked?
Well, if we are going to talk about absurdities in evolution, how about this?
First, how are humans able to perceive beauty, or even desire to see it?
A beautiful sunset or the clouds in the sky have no evolutionary advantage.
The capacity if not tendency toward beauty defies evolution.
And what about beauty in a mate?
What men desire in a women is ANTI-evolutionary.
Evolutionary pressures would favor selection of RUGGED, strong, resilient females — not delicate, easily-broken females.
Smaller women have difficulties with giving birth to large babies. Larger babies at birth are more survivable and can grow to be self-sufficient more quickly.
So if evolution were true, men would desire women as large and rugged as they are — not smaller, more slender, more delicate women.
Fat women should be more attractive because a woman (a) with energy reserves and (b) the capacity to acquire lots of food would be more likely to successfully reproduce healthy offspring.
No, nearly everyone would not, and those that did would be mistaken. Evolution is about the adaptation and change of life over time.
"Charles Darwin's book was titled "The ORIGIN of the Species."
Right, not "The Origin of Life". If that's what he meant that's what he would have said. All the many species originated after life existed. He said "origin of species" because that's what he meant.
"But since no one can agree on what "evolution" is exactly, how can you claim that there is proof of something that is ill-defined?"
Just because you are confused about something doesn't mean everyone else is. The concept of evolution is not ill-defined.
"Life began only once."
That's an assumption. You are doing what you criticize others for. In fact you don't know that it couldn't have originated in multiple times and locations and either had very similar chemistry each time, or the more robust variation overwhelmed the other starts.
"Life began only once. That is why it is beyond the competence of science to investigate how life began. Science can only test through experiments phenomenon that are occurring in the present. "
Again wrong. There is no reason in principle that scientists couldn't test hypothesis for the origin of life in a lab. In fact many such tests regarding various elements of such scenarios have been tested in labs over the years.
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.