Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".

Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:

(snip)

Dana and others have replied to your comments about what Lewontin said
34 years ago. But even if you are right in this case - that Lewontin
truly was an anti-evolutionist 34 years ago

Negative Frank, I never said Lewontin was an anti-evolutionist at any
time. You have made a mistake.

To imply that a 34 year quote is less valid today, especially a quote
pertaining to a widely held criticism about NS is without merit. If the
quote was made by a Creo you would not have questioned validity based
on a measly three decades. Truth and facts are not any less true or any
less false from when they were established or refuted.

People will always observe NS the way Lewontin did because Darwinists
say it explains everything. Dennett wrote "Dangerous Idea" (NS =
"universal acid") and Dawkins wrote "BW" (NS accounts for all
appearance of design) and Gould wrote "Structure of Evolutionary
Theory" (NS = central trunk area of tree of life) built on the SINGLE
foundation of NS. "Darwin insisted on full sufficiency in
extrapolation, arguing that his microevolutionary mechanism, extended
through the immensity of geological time, would be fully capable of
generating the entire pageant of life's history...and that no further
causal principles would be required" (Gould 2002:15). While Gould
writes over a 1000 + pages showing where Darwin was wrong, the one area
that he was right (the preceding quote) supports the Lewontin quote.

I have readily noticed that what evolutionary authorities say do not
match what ordinary evolutionists believe. But I do exempt you from
this observation since your words and tone are faithful to objectivity.


After studying the Lewontin quote I am going to reply Augray formally
and make an argument saying that there is no quote mine.

- evolution stands on its
own today with or without that (though one still has to wonder why you
had to go that far back to get the quote).


You have no point. Its better to just say that you disagree and
downplay internal descrepancies ?

Since what one person thought way back when has no bearing on whether
your upcoming theory is supported or not, I want to take this
opportunity to compliment you on what - for now at least - seems like a
refreshing change from current "big tent" antics. You said:

Besides, Behe believes apes morphed into men, these types are very well
known to lie - obviously.


IIRC the quote was directed to Tweedy or Augray. Both persons have told
brazen lies in this thread. I know that you support them in general,
but if a Creo lied I would do the same.

But that doesn't mean any given person lies about everything. The
evidence says IC is a fact and the same has falsified gradualism.

(snip)

If you are truly unconstrained by the need to placate other
anti-evolutionists, I have some recommendations for your paper.

If it truly has something original, it too will stand on its own, and
generate new lines of research. As critics said for Meyer's paper, if
it is for real, it will be a beginning, not the "last word." Sadly,
Meyer's paper was nothing but a rehash of old incredulity arguments. It
neither refuted evolution, gave evidence of a designer, nor proposed
any testable alternative hypothesis. So, as expected, after 2 years,
Meyer himself has shown that it was not a beginning, but another (dead)
end.

If your paper claims what you hint it does - provide a theory for an
old-earth, independent abiogenesis account that happens to coincide
with one of the literal interpretations of Genesis, these
recommendations will help you immensely:


Why would a Creationist even think of abiogenesis when Genesis says God
caused matter ?

1. If you haven't already, submit it to a major scientific publication.
If Meyer can get past peer review, so can you.


No evo rag would give me the time of day. They are under no obligation
to voice that which might topple them from power.

Unfortunately, Creationists back stab one another over the drop of a
hat. Dr. Scott was the most plagiarized man in the 20th century. We had
to take his Archives off-line due to mass piracy.

My paper will appear on-line on my own site, however, this could
change.

Peer review ?

I have no peers in this issue. My peers should worry if I approve of
them.

2. Just in case there are some anti-Bible types who might reject your
paper for the wrong reasons, just leave out all references to the
Bible, or to a "designer." If the data point that way, thousands of
theistic evolutionists will advertise your paper for you, and add all
the extra-scientific commentary you are itching to include.


You do not understand. I CAN PROVE the Bible true and Darwinism false.
Darwin rejected special creation, and "Origin" was a reply to Paley,
whose "Argument from Design" contained no references to the Bible.

The Bible is where the action is, Frank. The reason why secular THINKS
it is just a dead book is explained by the Bible. You seem to forget
that 40 percent of Americans embrace Creationism as the scientific
theory corresponding to reality.

3. Leave out all problems with evolution. Right or wrong, it's a red
flag, especially after the Meyer debacle, that could also generate an
unfair review. If you have a new theory, it will stand on its own,
without any reference to "holes" in evolution. *After* the paper is
published, you can add how your theory falsified "macroevolution." But
do yourself a favor - read up on Theobald. His "potential" falsifiers
can only help you.


I appreciate the advice, Frank. But the crust of the Earth showing no
signs of intermediacy, that is, that which a evolutionary theory
necessitates, is irresistible. Why leave out problems with ToE ?

BTW, what was specifically wrong with Meyer in your view ?

4. If your paper is truly a beginning, and if you truly have no
allegiance to the big tent, then YEC and the "don't ask, don't tell" ID
strategy will be dead. Admit it. Advertise it. But expect contnuing
misrepresentation from YECs, and don't be surprised if IDers try to
claim credit for your ideas. Since mainstream science will have no
choice but to accept your theory, the irony will be that most of your
enemies will be - creationists!

The Bible shows Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss to His face = the
Bible corresponds to reality. The Evangelical Church world (his
"brothers") were Dr. Scott's worst enemies.

Benny Hinn's wife is the daughter of an old colleague of Dr. Scott.
When the old colleague fell ill, Hinn asked Dr. Scott to fly to Florida
and pray for him. Strange, since Hinn is known for praying and Dr.
Scott has never prayed on T.V. in compliance with Christ's directive to
not pray in public. They fly to Florida and enroute Dr. Scott gives
Hinn a lesson in Hebrew and his first Hebrew Bible. Weeks later Hinn
goes on national T.V., preaches the exact lesson Dr. Scott taught him
on the plane and takes credit for the whole thing. Dr. Scott confronts
him and Hinn says "so what...what are you going to do about it ?"

I am not comparing Dr.Scott to Christ. I am saying those who truly
represent Christ will have to endure Judases (Hi Dana).

Ray

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast