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

Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:


(snip)

Once again, since others have replied more fully about Lewontin, the
difference between evolution itself (which I agree Lewontin accepts)
and the various meanings and connitations of NS, the lurkers can decide
as usual.


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.

No. It was a reply to my post. But I do look forward to you debating
Behe directly on it.


My work relies heavily on the fact of IC. Since Behe believes in human
evolution it makes his IC facts all the more objective and the
rejection of the same by Darwinists all the more subjective,
groundless, biased, and dishonest evading gradualism falsification for
worldview preservation reasons, and to avoid from having to admit that
ALL of you were wrong, and to avoid from having to burn every biology
book in existence advocating Darwin's step by tiny stepping stone based
theory.


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

IC - the concept if not the phrase - predates Behe. If it falsifies
your concept of "gradualism" it still doesn't falsify evolution. When
he's not pulling a bait-and-switch with design Behe all but admits it.
He certaily admits that it doesn't falsify common descent.


Too many half-truths, distortions and caricatures to deal with.



(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 ?

Simple. Once the matter is created, somehow, somewhere it must get
assembled into a living system.

But that is all we are talking about - FIRST CAUSE.

Darwin's paradigm says matter caused DNA replication machinery to come
into existence so that the law of natural selection could begin, which
is a diametric reversal of the Genesis cosmogony (God caused matter to
come into existence). Dennett calls Darwin's paradigm "Darwin's
inversion" (1995:66), that is, the Genesis model antithetically
inverted, and that inversion has no explanation as to how matter came
into existence in the first place (abiogenesis speculation). This is
why Darwin said very late in life (1876, "Auotbio") that he was
agnostic about a First Cause (that which caused DNA replication
machinery to come into existence).

We know Darwin was an atheist as early as 1837. The deistic view that
ended "Origin" and his claim of theism was for his wife and friends,
and to avoid the stigma of atheism in Victorian (pro-Creator) society.
Common ancestry and humans from monkeys is as atheistic as it gets,
especially in the 19th century. Darwin's deistic shell, in addition to
the reasons just stated, thwarted an identification of atheism to
preserve his theory for being dismissed as such. Men like Owen and
Sedgwick were not fooled. Gray and Kingsley were easily taken in by the
sourceless God-talk of the "Origin". Modern TEists are victims of
Gray's and Kingsley's misunderstandings.


As I said before, one would think that
creationists (those who think life-from-nonlife occurred many times,
either all at once, or over billions of years) would be *more*
interested than "evolutionists" in studying the "how and when." Instead
they can't even call it by name.


I've never encountered a Creationist who believes that laws and life
originally sprang from matter instead of God.

There's a method to their madness, though. Once a mechanism is
proposed, however lacking in detail - and physico-chemical mechanisms
will *always* lack some detail - it will look "naturalistic" no matter
how many designers and Creators are involved.

Creationists started and IDers perfected the tactic - which only works
since most people do not understand the nature of science - of pointing
to the lack of detail in mechanisms of speciatiation and abiogenesis as
"gaps", while providing no detail at all on their own alternative. Most
people just don't see the blatant double standard.


I really do not follow what you are onto.



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.

Again, you are exploiting a popular misconception. A new theory will
*give* them power, not "topple" them. That doesn't mean that, as I
said, you won't find unfair reviwers. I gave you suggestions to get
around them.


My paper will prove that special creation is literally true, as we
Creationists already know.

Since Darwinism is a ludicrous explanation of the same scientific facts
that everyone must use, we know the lewd explanations are faithful to
worldview needs regardless of how out of touch with physical reality
that they are.



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.

IDers are working hard to squelch intra-creationist fighting, if it
makes you happy.


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.

Another Chez Watt! Two actually. (1) That you claim to have no peers
"in this issue", and (2), if you have no peers, who is there to worry?


Don't get me wrong, I would like peer support, and I have it in my own
Creationist world here in Los Angeles. I predict Creationists and
IDists will support me in droves after reading "Darwin"ism Refuted".

Make no mistake; Darwin is defended tooth and nail today.

I am taking Darwin to task. When I destroy the foundation, everything
built on that foundation today goes with it.

I will build on Dembski in "Intelligent Design" (1999). Dembski
rightly identified that the demise of British Natural Theology was
groundless and the rise of British Naturalism was the same since there
was no evidence, natural selection was rejected unitil the 1940s. We
also know that Darwin turned a blind eye to all scientific data showing
the age of the Earth to be no more than 100,000,000 years old and the
fossil record showing no signs of intermediacy. IOW, Darwinism HAD to
be true, atheistic needs could not be denied by anything.

I will provide the original research that Dembski could not and explain
why "Origin" toppled Creationism.



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.

But you can only "prove" (correct term: "support with evidence") that
one interpretation of the Bible is true. If your theory is correct, you
will have done more to "disprove" the Bible (all but one of the
mutually contradictory interpretation) than any "Darwinist" has ever
deamed of. Ironic, ain't it?


Comment assumes every lame-brain interpretation by enemies and Fundies
is valid.

For example: the TEist corrupton of "just religious truth" attempting
to say God did not literally mean what He said (special creation of
Adam from the dust of the ground in His image and likeness). This view
has no source, where does the Bible say "just religious truth"
(whatever that means ?).

Such an important claim should have endless support in the Bible, yet,
there is not even one verse that says "just religious truth" (whatever
that means). HOWEVER, the preceding TEist view is accounted for IN the
Bible as attempted corruption which my paper will expose.

God is real and He outsmarted all of you modern hatemongers who have
asserted evil (design = mindlessness, instead of design = invisible
Designer).


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.

I am well aware of the poll #s. I am also aware that ~50% believe in
astrology, and ~90% have no idea of what "theory" means. Worse for you,
most of that 40% believes in the YEC account. You will disappoint them
more than "Darwinists" with your OEC "theory".


The ignorance cited in your comment is produced by higher education
that is wholly Darwinistic. Evolutionists and atheists run higher
education and your brothers in Law keep Creationists out. Astrology and
ignorance is what Darwinism has produced. If persons could believe that
apes morphed into men then they could believe anything.

YEC's will not be disappointed, even though I am a OEC. The age of the
Earth has no foundational bearing on my work.


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 ?

Nothing if you grant "equal time" to problems with YEC. Besides, if
your "theory" stands on its own you won't need either.


Darwinists special plead the lack of intermediacy in the crust of the
Earth to not falsify macroevolution, and YEC's special plead the same
crust to be deceptive, as not indicating an old Earth.

I bow to the evidence and do not have to special plead anything: there
is no intermediacy seen in geological strata because macroevolution is
not true. Geological layers indicate an Earth of "immense age" (Dr.
Scott). Since the Bible clearly supports an old Earth and special
creation, pre-Cambrian explosion scientifically corroborates both.


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

As I said, it is nothing but an argument from incredulity - one that
was refuted before it was even written. It proposes no alternative
theory, not even a testable hypothesis. For more read "Meyers Hopeless
Monster" on "The Panda's Thumb" blog (there's a link on the home page).

Because Meyer apparently cheated to get it published, reviewers are
more on guard to catch such pseudoscientific nonsense. Besides, like
you, Meyer has a website where he can dazzle unsuspecting audiences.
From what you say about your "theory" (unless you are throwing us off)
you will not have any of the problems Meyer had.


I will check it out.


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).

And you are not comparing yourself to Christ neither, right? He had no
peers either, I am told. ;-)

Ray

Good point.

BUT, like I said, the overriding point is that persons who truly
represent Christ will be treated like Him.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages