Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I do agree with this arguement springer but in future if you are going to give direct quotes from George Marshall (or anyone else) it would be polite to give him the credit for them unless of course you are George in which case hello
His article is here
and here are other similar ones
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
I am suspicious of I.D.. I am even more suspicious of the theory of evolution. Both are connected to an unnatural power out of the realm of science. It is logical that there must be SOMETHING supernatural (or "stupidnatural" in the case of evolution)in existence in order to explain everything we see around us. The connection to that SOMETHING fails both ideas using the scientific method. Scientific study of how electrons orbit an atom, how gravity works, and how diseases are inherited all rely on pure scientific investigation without needing SOMETHING to be involved. I.D. and the T.O.E demand SOMETHING to be involved which fails both topics in the scientific method. When studying origins it impossible to detach an unnatural power from our origins and our ideas of that power pursuade us to believe differnent things on the basis of bias.
I am saying that all orgins of life and species is out of the realm of science in terms of the scientific method. The existence of matter demands the existence of SOMETHING as the creator. This "creator" whether it be a "natural" power (stupidnatural-supposedly at work in evolution) or a supernatural, fails any scientific method. All experimentation in regards to our origins fall null and void in terms of bias corresponding with our personal, intuitive reasoning concerning the supernatural or stupidnatural.
Unless you presume the natural law is the creator. At any rate, SOMETHING comes into play as a creator. That role cannot be detatched from origins. Whatever the object with creativity, it must be given an unnatural power outside the realm of science. One can see the potential hang-up within Darwin's theory itself as a "breeder" is apparent in the very metaphor used to describe the process. In short, SOMETHING will always take the place of that "breeder" and become an unnatural force with an implication of a supernatural (or stupidnatural) force. A stupidnatural (blind, unconscious, non-directional, etc...) force should fail the scientific method just as a supernatural force. Evolution is attempting to identify the process whereby its own, creative force created everything we see around us. This is why the theory is so weighted with biasness because the theory should not be able to be tested given the boundaries of the scientific method. Bottom line is that any orgins possibility is connected to its own personality of force or being whose presence is unavoidable.
Another quick thought. In the case of other scientific topics of study like gravity, we study mechanisms with no connection to a greater (or lesser) power as their possible existence is meanlingless in these cases. This is not so with the theory of evolution. Any origins possibility always hinges on the force behind the mechanism, what he/she/it is, which is unacceptable within the boundaries of any scientific method. Basically our perception of the "creator" disallows this study as scientific. Unless one thinks there is no "creator" which is nothing less than humerous.
Back the car up:
I think I almost sort of maybe understand kind of what you're possibly saying.
So your "stupidnatural" (good choice of key phrase btw, really sets the bar) force is a force outside of our declared laws of physics etc that is somehow responsible for evolution, or more pointedly, abiogenesis?
If that's the case then you're way off, as the hypotheses within the TOE all attempt to explain how it may have happened WITHIN the laws of science as we know them.
I really don't understand where you see this "greater power" directing evolution.
I will give you this much, to some people, evolution becomes dogma or even cultish faith. That is tragic. It doesn't change the fact that the TOE is science.
Just out of curiosity, what grade do you teach?
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
The hypotheses formulated within the T.O.E are unable to pass through any scientific method due to the "theory's" dependency upon any power whether higher (supernatural) or lesser (stupidnatural). One simply cannot detatch the connection between SOMETHING (some kind of power) that is ouside the arena of science from creation or evolution. They both demand the existence of SOMETHING to guide their processes. The speculation into the nature or mechanistic properties of that SOMETHING are not allowed within science. When these hypotheses are allowed through the process, they are saturated with bias in light of what that particular scientist fancies in regards to the existence of the supernatural or stupidnatural.
I do support evolution as scientific possibility when proposed as such. Unfortunately I have to lie to my high-school students and tell them they have evolved from ancestoral apes and would probably run the risk of being fired if I said anything differently. HMMM, sounds like a suspicious agenda behind evolutionary "theory".
Some more food for thought. Scientist dont "attempt to explain how it may have happened WITHIN the laws of science as we know them", they attempt to explain how it DID happen within the laws of science. Remember to an evolutionist evolution HAPPENED. That is the product of allowing a process through the scientific method when in reality it shouldnt. Bias takes over. Also, remember that the laws of science exist without any supposed correlation with a higher (or lower) being. On this issue the laws/theories are supposed to be silent. However the T.O.E. speaks directly about the nature and mechanistic choice of a higher (or lower) being. It simply tells us that he/she/it, supernatural or stupidnatural, chose to use this law to create everything we see around us. Gravity does not do this. Atomic Theory doesnt do it. Thermodynamics doesnt do it. They dont mind if Buddha, Christ, or the Pope put us here and are running things, those concepts seek to explain natural phenomena irregardless of the existence of a higher or lower being. The theory of evolution is not so, it tells us whoever the being is, he/she/it used evolution which is an outcrop of pure bias. Evolutionists are simply using evolution to find their "god".
That's defining the term very broadly, anything can be a creator at that rate. Creationists like to define it more as an entity....
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
It doesnt matter how you define "it", "it" still exists and "it" possesses a power outside of science. Whatever "it" is, "it's" best representative in the science world is a breeder as the model evolution uses to infer from, artificial selection, suggests. Again, it doesnt matter what "it" is, "it" is outside the limitations of science. The bottom line is SOMETHING must exist as a creator whether it is an entity, law, limiting factor, etc... This connection makes origins of life and species impossible in scientific inquiry. Bias will abound as a result and obviously does.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests