A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 25)
42 PagesFirst 23 24 25 26 27  Last
on Dec 29, 2008

Then there's the Catholic Apocrypha, which are not part of non-Catholic Bibles. So, are they the True Word of God as well?

Yep..all 46 books of the Old Testament are the true Word of God for me. Why? Becasue the same so called bunch of Catholic wheels were guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing them as inspired and He should know for He's the same one who was their principal Author!

The Holy Bible from Genesis to the Book of the Apocalypse has stood the test of critics like you for hundreds of years. It's God's story to us about His plan of salvation as KFC has already stated, written over a period of 1500 years by at least 40 authors. Read it and you'll see it resonates so deeply with life as we know it today.    

 

on Dec 29, 2008

lula posts

Be specific ..exactly how did/does life transform into so many species? What's the mechanism?

Daiwa posts:

Natural selection. Just read the book. It's even in the title.

Natural selection is known to occur but it doesn't result in evolution so therefore it can't be the mechanism. After observing a wide variety of birds, Darwin mistakenly concluded that all species, from amoeba to man, had evolved from a common ancestry. What Darwin was actually observing was variety within kind, aka genetic variation and not evolution at all.

Instead of adding new DNA info to the gene pool, natural selection can result in loss of information or at best only acts to conserve the existing types. Claiming all change as microevolution is a blatant misuse of terminology. There is a critical distinction between evolution and genetic variation. Evolution suggests the environment forces each species to adapt and somehow acquire new and higher information to its gene pool in order to survive, but natural selection only works within the existing gene pool of each species and has a stablilizing effect since novelties tend to be eliminated as they are not able to interbreed with other descendents of the original species.

  

on Dec 29, 2008

Like I said, Lula, it's yours to revere.  Just don't claim it refutes the theory of evolution, because it doesn't.  And forget the concept of 'higher' - species just change from something to something slightly different, one little difference at a time, over immense time frames.  Your argument neglects the fact of species isolation in environments which dramatically change over time, not necessarily in a linear fashion, sometimes in a cyclic fashion.  If two groups of the same species become isolated from each other in differing environments, they can evolve completely separately into species which at some point can no longer successfully interbreed, meaning they have become two different species.  It is a mistake to assume that species differentiation is an event as opposed to a very long drawn out process, but creationists tend to insist it is some sort of event at some specific point in time, another straw man argument.  But it's clearly a waste of energy to try to teach someone who will not listen, is in fact incapable of listening because of rigid beliefs, based on faith only, which may not be questioned in any way or placed in a broader context.

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Not to mention the gospels which were discarded in Constantinople as politically incorrect, an assessment made by venal, fallible humans.

All the Christian writings were gathered, examined and authenticated by 43 Catholic bishops including St.Augustine, bishop of Hippo in the year 397, 364 years after the Holy Spirit decsended in tongues of fire upon the Apostles and disciples which marked the official beginning of the Catholic Church. The Council of Carthage decided that along with the 46 Old Testament Books, 27 manuscripts were inspired and would form the New Testament canon.

Among the rejected manuscripts were writings attributed to St.Peter, St. Barnabas, St.Thomas, St.Philip, some from St.Paul, and St.Clement. These particular writings were good just not inspired of God.   

  

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Just don't claim it refutes the theory of evolution, because it doesn't.

True science is doing a very good job refuting evolution theory, the one that is commonly held across society and is taught in public schools.  The one that theorizes molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. The idea of change to something vastly different....from reptiles to birds or apes to man.

True science supports the Holy Bible and vice versa which makes perfect sense becasue both nature and the Holy Bible have the same Author.

 

on Dec 29, 2008

These particular writings were good just not inspired of God.

The Council of Carthage decided that along with the 46 Old Testament Books, 27 manuscripts were inspired and would form the New Testament canon.

There's the rub.  According to 43 Catholic bishops, not according to God.  I'm sure you'll say their choices were inspired by God, which is the universal copout & fallback position when logic & reason fail - 'everything' is controlled by God so the bishops were infallible by proxy, yada yada.  Which is fine to believe, if you so choose, but 'proof' of absolutely nothing.

Happy New Year to you.

on Dec 29, 2008

True science supports the Holy Bible and vice versa which makes perfect sense becasue both nature and the Holy Bible have the same Author.

You have truly flown over the Cuckoo's Nest.  Failure to recognize circular reasoning is not a defense.

Now on to more enjoyable & worthwhile endeavors... like popping zits or something.

on Dec 30, 2008

There is solid evidence that dinosaurs lived with people...footprints of both, cave drawings as well as rock carvings, not mention the legends that abound.

This was the part of this discussion that really took the cake for me.

I mean, Judas Priest.  There's stupid, then there's stupid, then there's Young Earth Creationists who somehow believe that antediluvian times were like some magical trip in Jurassic Park.  It's a whole new level of asinine.

 

on Dec 30, 2008

Here we go again.....you say.....evolution...is only about how life transformed into so many species.

Be specific ..exactly how did/does life transform into so many species? What's the mechanism?

You can read about the mechanism in biology books.

The mechanism is genetic mutations and adaptation.

 

on Dec 30, 2008

True science is doing a very good job refuting evolution theory

I don't know what your "true science" is.

But the science that produces medications is using evolution theory.

Why don't you point to a few gigantic scientific successes of Creationists?

 

on Dec 30, 2008

Why don't you point to a few gigantic scientific successes of Creationists?

Prior to the middle of the 1800s, scientists were researchers who firmly believed the universe and all nature was made by a Master Designer, God. They knew God created all life and sees that it goes on in an orderly fashion according to His will. Those pioneers who laid the foundation of modern science were Creationists. They built their ideas and their theories from these basic truths.

In 1802, William Paley summarized the viewpoint of Creationist scientists. From looking at a watch, he knew it had a designer and a maker and that it would be foolish to imagine that it made itself. He argured the same thing with all the kinds of carefully designed structures seen in the world of nature and in the universe of stars overhead ...pall oint to a Designer and a Maker.

This argument has been ignored, ridiculed and scoffed at by those evolutionists who claim all this made itself over a vast amount of time, but that doesn't change the fact that what Paley had to say remains unanswerable.

The basis of Evolutionary Theory was destroyed by 7 Creationist scientific research findings before Darwin first published his "Amoeba evolves to Man" theory.

1....by Carl Linn in 1700s....He classified plant and animal organisms according to definite categories, separate from one another. He claimed variation was possibile within species and there were many sub-specieis, but no halfway or crossovers from one species to another.

2....in 1847, Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the first law of Thermodynamics....which refutes several aspects of Evolutionary Theory.

3....In 1850, RJE Clausius stated the second law of thermodynamics...the law of entropy...that everything eventually runs down, runs out and goes to pieces....which totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex.

4....In 1812, a fully modern skeleton of a woman was found in Guadeloupe in a very deep level of strata.

5....Gregor Mendel's experiments showed that one species can not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. His work laid the basis for modern genetics and his discoveries demolished the basis for species evolution.

6...In 1861, L:ouis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation...that life cannot arise from non-living materials.

7....A German biologist, August Freidrich Leopold Weisman disproved Lamarck's notion of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics".  You know the one evolutionists teach school children today....that giraffes kept streching their necks to reach higher branches so their necks became longer. Darwin realized natural selection was unworkable went to Lamarkism as the cause of the never observed change from one species to another.

Added to these Creationists....

Louis Agassiz, Charles Babbage, Francis Bacon, SIr David Brewster, Georges Cuvier, Sir Humphrey  Davy, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, Johannes Kepler, Bernhard Riemann, etc.       

 

  

 

on Dec 30, 2008

Leauki
Here we go again.....you say.....evolution...is only about how life transformed into so many species.

Be specific ..exactly how did/does life transform into so many species? What's the mechanism?


You can read about the mechanism in biology books.

The mechanism is genetic mutations and adaptation. 

I have repeated it several times but they keep ignoring it... From reading some creationist propaganada i figured it out, the whole notion of macro evolution (there is no such thing, its just evolution) hinges on the idea that mutation does not exist. They claim there is no source of new data, aka, micro evolution is changes of ratios of genes within a species, genes that existed before (say, skin color for example, in response to, say, ethnic clensing). But they simply refuse to beleive in the existance of mutation despite clear evidence to its existance.

on Dec 30, 2008

True science is doing a very good job refuting evolution theory

I don't know what your "true science" is.

To me science is the knowledge and study of the meaning of reality. It's the study of what is, including things that can be rationally perceived beyond this world.

I write true science as opposed to pseudo science, the false science of Darwin's "amoeba evolves to man" falsely called evolution, of which there is no proven evidence including fossils. This false science is responsible for undermining the facts of God's Creation, Adam and Eve and Original Sin and Fallen mankind, negating the very reason for the Incarnation of God. Communism, Racism, Naturalism, Secular Humanism are all based upon ET and could not survive without it.

This false science has taken hold of education and become a great force shaping lives. Atheist's ideas based upon false interpretation claim that science has provided them with proofs that the Judeo-Christian religion, God, Original Sin, Redemption and Jesus Christ are only superstititons based on ignorance and all belong to the realm of myths and fairy tales.

This present day debate lies in science itself....Any honest examination reveals science has no proof at all to contracdict religion and the existence of God. We are engaged in a scientific war and science is used against religion and God trying to destroy religious truth and replace it with new perspectives, views, theories, and hypotheses where God has no place.

The first target of the war was the Old Testament particularly Genesis. Using false science they gave a secular explanation of the world and all life in it. But sceince isn't the enemy of religion and God at all....it's used by the enemy though even by falsification to seduce man away from believing in God.       

 

 

on Dec 30, 2008

In 1802, William Paley summarized the viewpoint of Creationist scientists. From looking at a watch, he knew it had a designer and a maker and that it would be foolish to imagine that it made itself. He argured the same thing with all the kinds of carefully designed structures seen in the world of nature and in the universe of stars overhead ...pall oint to a Designer and a Maker.

This argument has been ignored, ridiculed and scoffed at by those evolutionists who claim all this made itself over a vast amount of time, but that doesn't change the fact that what Paley had to say remains unanswerable.

It's very answerable.  It's reductionist bullshit with circular reasoning ('carefully designed structures seen in the world') in which the assumption is the conclusion without benefit of proof (where's the evidence they were designed - you take that as gospel simply on Paley's word?); totally illogical, irrational & irrelevant.  All you know from Paley is he was able to figure out that a watch was made by someone (like he didn't know?).  Brilliant guy.  There, you have an answer.

on Dec 30, 2008

'carefully designed structures seen in the world'

They mean things like malaria and diabetes.

 

42 PagesFirst 23 24 25 26 27  Last