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 9)
42 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last
on Jun 25, 2008
My point is that this debate continues because atheists (in general) think Darwinism Evolution disproves God.


I'm sorry if I'm confusing things. When I say, "this debate", I mean the greater controversy that's been going on for over 150 years...Creation vs Evolution. We are continuing that debate in this particular discussion on JU (which btw,I'm enjoying tremendously and glad to be a participant ).

In that case I am not sure what you are discussing because I don't think anybody brought that up.


You did, albeit not directly, by your title and saying that

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.


Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism, which posits that from some kind of primeval "molecular soup" over millions of years of accidental, random mutations (highly implausible) and natural selection (pointless tautology), mankind evolved.
on Jun 25, 2008
I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. They explain everything best.


We have discussed Dawkin's book on another blog.


I don't know how Darwinist evolution could disprove G-d and I have never heard of any atheist, including Professor Dawkins, who would have made such a claim as you seem to remember.

Anyway, did you or did you not read Richard Dawkins' books about evolution?


The other blog I was referring to is AdNauseum's, "Invitation to JU Bible Students".

In it we discussed Dawkin's book and Darwinism in particular.

In it reply #7, I wrote,


In my view, Darwinism's "molecules to man" theory does indeed deny God, 100%. I haven't read Dawkin's book only several reviews, and none treat Dawkin, as you do here, as a fellow Darwinist. I should like to explore the Godless part of Darwinism and Dawkinism more.

But first, I'd like to make an observation about how history and later, science, has disproven Darwinism. To believe in Darwinism, macro-Evolution theory, that mankind somehow evolved---from nothing to molecule to ape to man---one would have to believe that we have experienced a steady rise from brutality, right?

Both history and science deny this steady rise from one species to another. I say our humanness was created all at once, as Adam was, completely distinct and unique and as "fallen man", we have been not experiencing a steady rise, but falling ever since. History is full of falls. Nations rise to a high state of civilization and decay. If Evolution wants to maintain a steady uplift, history itself proves it wrong.


on Jun 25, 2008

Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism,


There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" according to Darwin and the theory of evolution.

"Macro-evolution" is a concept made up by lying (!) Creationists. It does not have any followers among scientists and Darwinists.

You really think that ignorance teaches, don't you? You really think that if you tell me often enough that I don't have to read biology books, I will eventually agree with you and reject all the knowledge I already have in favour of YOUR understanding of a religious book that I can already understand far better than you anyway.

Well, it doesn't work.

Creationism is a lie and that doesn't mean the same as saying that G-d is a lie.

It is _YOUR_ interpretation of the Bible that is a lie, not the Bible itself.




which posits that from some kind of primeval "molecular soup" over millions of years of accidental, random mutations (highly implausible) and natural selection (pointless tautology), mankind evolved.


That's "evolution" or "micro-evolution". And you still haven't demonstrated how G-d interferes to make sure that those changes don't accumulate.

"Random mutations" are not "highly implausible", but can easily be observed in labs.

And "natural selection" is a "pointless tautology" only to those who don't understand it.

Seriously, read a book about about evolution.

Come back when you have read Dawkins' books. Is it too much to ask that you at least give yourself the opportunity to learn what it actually is that you want to oppose?

(Incidentally, Dawkins' books are not ancient legends. They can be taken literally. That's the difference between a science book and a religious book. That's why the Bible says that G-d must not be tested whereas Dawkins' books confirm that you can test their contents.)
on Jun 25, 2008
I will, from now on, try not to reply to ANY statements that contain the term "macro-evolution" or "randomness" with regard to evolution and natural selection.

It's pointless.

I am fine with arguing for or against evolution, but there HAS TO BE a starting point. And that starting point MUST BE that those who deny evolution at least have an idea of what it is.

on Jun 25, 2008

In it we discussed Dawkin's book and Darwinism in particular.


And no doubt none of you ever read his books or understood Darwin's theory.

Perfect.

That's it. We'll continue once you quote to me the first complete sentence on page 42 of "The Selfish Gene".

on Jun 25, 2008
Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism,



There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" according to Darwin and the theory of evolution.


"Macro-evolution" is a concept made up by lying (!) Creationists.


Okay, now with this I see you're still not understanding there is a vast difference between the two.

I have a book entitled "Evolution of Life; Understanding Science and Nature" published by TIME-LIFE in Alexandria,Virginia. If you care to check out Time-Life, you'll find they are 100% secular...they are part and parcel of the media that pushes Darwinism or macro-Evolution theory as "fact". This book can be found in the children's section of most public and school libraries here in the US. It's indoctrinating Darwinism as fact.

On page 24 begins an entire chapter that answers the question, "What is Macroevolution"?

Since there are no restrictions whatsoever of my reproducing the first two paragraphs,

"At certain times in the course of evolution, the many small changes that produce new species accumulate to the point where, suddenly, a radically different form of life appears. From that one species, many new species evolve--the tree of life grows a new large branch from which dozens of smaller branches will develop. This dramatic change is known as macroevolution, or adaptive radiation. An example is when the first feathered reptile appeared; this was the ancestor of all the first birds that have evolved since.

In the animal kingdom, an early macroevolution produced an eel-like species with a spinal cord but no backbone. The next huge step occurred when the first fish evolved, with its weight supporting backbone. The appearance of lobbed-finned fish, which were able to breathe on land, represents another macroevolution. Millions of years later, the first reptile appeared, and millions of years after that, the first mammal."





on Jun 25, 2008
Random mutations" are not "highly implausible", but can easily be observed in labs.


Ha, That would be a Darwinist's dream come true and it would be plastered on every news outlet all over the world.

But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.

Remember your example of bacteria, I said that we begin with bacteria and end up with bacteria? More to that, random mutations most generally produce something less, not more. The vast majority of random mutations are deletrious to the organism, not better for it. If macro-evolution were to occur, it would take hundreds of millions of mutations, and that too is an impossibility especially in nature. That's why they call it random mutations.


on Jun 25, 2008
Seriously, read a book about about evolution.[/quote]

Do you seriously think I could carry on a discussion if I haven't read any books on evolution? I am a mother and former librarian who has fought long and hard against having macroevolution as fact taught in schools.

You, Leauki, unless you're playing games, must learn the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Microevolution is true science that we agree 100% upon and the Macroevolution (Darwinism) is pseudo science, a lie developed by atheists, being masqueraded as fact or truth.

As we write this, true science is discrediting if not entirely disproving Darwin's marco-evolution theory. Natural selection and all the other intellectual levers used to pry God from His throne has failed, for right reason finds God to be the Creator and final end of mankind. God

I am wonderfully made by God according to His purposes and not the product of a single cell that by chance somehow randomly mutated into a brute ape-like creature.

In short, I believe in Genesis and from that know without question that I didn't evolve from an ape-like creature, but if you want to believe you did, then what can I say?


quote]That's it. We'll continue once you quote to me the first complete sentence on page 42 of "The Selfish Gene".


Sorry, I can't abide your terms. So, Bye, bye. Good luck on finding those transitional forms between man and the lower animals.   







on Jun 26, 2008

Sorry, I can't abide your terms.


I figured. Discussions with Creationists always end at that point.

Your god hid another fossil for us to find and prove evolution:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33623/title/Fossil_helps_document_shift_from_sea_to_land



on Jun 26, 2008

Your god hid another fossil for us to find and prove evolution: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33623/title/Fossil_helps_document_shift_from_sea_to_land

No way!  There are TRANSITIONAL fossils?  And they've been busy telling me there is no such thing, hammering it into my head over and over and over and over and over and over . . .

on Jun 26, 2008

Just remember:  All those scientific discoveries that support evolution are actually the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who touches those scientists with his noodly appendage to keep us all in the dark about his noodly glory.

Because, you know, he created everything.  In way less time than no steenkin' six days.

on Jun 26, 2008
Well, TECHNICALLY there are not "transitional fossils" because all species are "transitional".

Creationists believe that they are only certain species supposed to be around, hence "links" between them are "transitional".

In reality, it's not borders between species but a family tree.
on Jun 26, 2008
Well, TECHNICALLY there are not "transitional fossils" because all species are "transitional".


I know. You should realize by now that I'm being completely facetious.
on Jun 26, 2008

And that's the panic for atheism and those otherwise true believers in Darwinism....for at every turn, the vast and accumulating evidence of modern science is agaisnt Darwinism.

 

Panic?  I don't know any panicking atheists.  Can you give me one link to anything where an atheist displays panic because he thinks any current statement of science is about to be overturned?

 

All of the atheists I know couldn't care less if science overturns anything.  they'd simply reformulate their views to be in line with what was the new scientifically supported idea.  And all of the atheists I know, if God's existence were suddenly proven beyond a shadow of a scientific doubt, would say "Whoops, guess I was wrong."

 

You really shouldn't generalize.  Not everyone thinks the same way, and just because you find one atheist that says something doesn't mean we all believe it or ascribe to it.  No more than all Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old.  You want to give examples, that's fine, but don't link them to me just because I'm an atheist, too.

on Jun 26, 2008
Panic?




All of the atheists I know couldn't care less if science overturns anything.


That may well be true in your circle...however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field....and a rash of atheists write books trying to make the dogmas of Darwinism appeal all the more.

And it isn't becasue people who believe this nonsense are stupid, they aren't. More like obtuse. On some subjects some people simpluy refuse to use their (what my mom use to call "thinking caps") heads.

42 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last