An email I sent to an evolution prof at my alma mater

[George-ananda]

I personally believe in evolution and that it was fostered by intelligent design (through nature beings of a higher plane).

Now @ttechsan ....how do you believe we humans have come to exist (instead of what you don't believe). Thanks.

 

[dust1n]

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329

So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

David Hume so thoroughly debunked the Watchmaker's Analog, like, over 200 years ago:

"Hume (1711-1776) offered a number of the most memorable philosophical criticisms to Paley's watch analogy before Darwin's theory of evolution had been discovered. His criticisms can be separated into three major distinctions:

His first objection is that we have no experience of world making. Hume highlighted the fact that everything we claim to know the cause of, we have derived these inductions from previous experiences of similar objects being created, or seen the object itself being created ourselves. For example, with a watch we know it has to be created by a watch-maker because we can observe it being made and compare it to the making of other similar watches or objects to deduce they have alike causes in their creation. However, he argues that we have no experience of the universe's creation, or any other universe's creations to compare our own universe to, and never will therefore it would be illogical to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way in which a watch has.

The second criticism Hume offers is about the form of the argument as an analogy in itself. An analogical argument claims that, because object X (a watch) is like object Y (the universe) in one respect, they are therefore probably alike in another, hidden, respect (their cause i.e. having to be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for an argument from analogy to be successful, the two things that are being compared have to have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the respect you are analogizing them with. For example, a kitten and a lion may be very similar in many respects, however just because a lion makes a "roar" it would not be correct to infer a kitten also "roars", because the similarities between the two objects are not similar enough and the degree of relevance to what sound they make is not relevant enough. Hume then argues that the universe and a watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to infer that they were both created the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material however the watch is made of artificial mechanic materials. He claims that in the same respect, the universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable (in which we can observe for ourselves does not need a 'designer' or a 'watchmaker' to be created). Although he does admit the analogy of a universe to a vegetable seems ridiculous, he says that it is just as ridiculous to analogize the universe with a watch.[9]

The third criticism Hume offers is that even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it still gives no evidence for the traditional 'omnipotent', 'benevolent' (all-powerful and all-loving) God of traditional Christian theism. One of the main assumptions of Paley's argument is that 'like effects have like causes'; or that machines (e.g. the watch) and the universe have similar features of design, therefore they must both also have the same cause of their existence i.e. they must both have an intelligent designer. However, Hume points out that what Paley does not comprehend is to what extent do these 'like causes' extend; i.e. how similar the creation of a universe is to the creation of a watch. Instead, Paley moves straight to the conclusion that this designer of the universe is the 'God' he believes in - of traditional Christianity. Hume, however takes the idea of 'like causes' and points out some potential absurdities in how far the 'likeness' of these causes could extend to if the argument were taken further as to explain this. One example he uses is how a machine or a watch is usually designed by a whole team of people rather than just one person, therefore surely, if we are analogizing the two in this way, it would point to there being a group of Gods who created the universe not just a single being. Another example he uses is that usually, complex machines are the result of many years of trial and error with every new machine an improved version of the last. Also by analogy of the two, would this not hint that the universe could also have been just one of many of God's 'trials', and that there are much better universes out there? However, if this were taken to be true, surely the 'creator' of it all would not be 'all loving' and 'all powerful' if they had to carry out the process of 'trial and error' when creating the universe?[10]

Hume also points out there is still a possibility that the universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design, given the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own. He called this the 'Epicurean hypothesis'. It argued that when the universe was first created, the universe was random and chaotic but if the universe is eternal, over this unlimited period of time natural forces could have naturally 'evolved' by random particles coming together over time, into the incredibly ordered system we can observe today without the need of an intelligent designer as an explanation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#David_Hume

A watch isn't made by one person, it's made by more then one person. It requires multiple intelligence agent, let alone something more complicated like a passenger aircraft. So, it would also be safe to assume then, that something as complicated as the totality of nature, would require many many many, intelligent agents.

Anyways, in regards to how random chance can "function design" and also the many lame objections presented in your Apologetics Press source:

http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/thenewgenetics/chapter1.html

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Because if you don't know and understand evolution, then there is basically no real job for one to do in biology. Unless you like gardening or horticulture. Even then, expect the business the fail because understanding evolution will make a business massively more competitive.

 

[dust1n]

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

The guy who wrote this is a massive atheist. His thing about teaching and brainwashing is far from evolution specific. In case you didn't notice, Creationism is also "Taught" and subject to the same criticisms.

I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

Well, I'm not going to give money to someone who writes creationism books, but if you would like to share any examples of marcoevolution breaking down once you get to specifics, I'd love to specific examples of this.

This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Feel free to share it.

 

[dust1n]

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Just even assuming there was reason to believe in an Intelligent Design, what about this design indicates Jesus has anything to do with that design? Seems to me like Baha'i faith might disagree as to the who the most important prophet is. Either way, what about design indicates anything about any characteristics of the ID? I ask because I just had a different creationist sit there and argue with me as to why I know nothing about the ID because I didn't realize that no characteristics could be applied to him.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

If you find Anthony Flew's arguments compelling, then why do you believe in a Christian God as opposed to a Aristotelian God? Why Would I believe in an Aristotelian God as opposed to a Hermetic God?

As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

There's a biology class I'm glad I missed.

I gladly look forward to your replies.

 

[David M]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain.

And you fall at the first hurdle, science does not claim that we are the top of any "evolutionary chain".

The rest is typical creationist ignorance and misinformation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You must explain from the very start w/o Intelligent Designer by Randomness all the order & complex Design seen that exist!

Well you must also show how intelligent design works. You can simply start with human design, then cut down the theory to a general theory of design, and extrapolate the theory to the universe in general. How exactly does human design work? What exactly happens in the designing brain, what is the exact physics of it, the mathematics, and so on? Have you got any reference to an actual attempt to make scientific theory about it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suggest the OP learn more about evolution, and then ask the question again. Evolution does not state humans are an "evolutionary pennacle," as some things like aligators have been around much longer, we are not the fastest animals, we don't live the longest, our senses are not as good as other animals, and we are actually quite fragile. Also, saying "evolutionist" is rather more of a straw man than anything, because we do not use such terms (isms or ists) for any other science theory, and it's an attempt to make evolution, a scientific fact, seem more like a religious belief like creationism.
If things are so intelligently designed, why do we live in the middle of a belt of asteroids? Why is the sun capable of causing so much damage to us? Why are their so many genetic flaws and disorders? Why do we have the diseases we do? If it's an intelligent design, why is that life must feed on life to sustain itself?

 

[Parsimony]

Read the articles & tell me how using your intelligence you'd evolve first article randomly w/o Intelligence.

(1) Evolution isn't random.
(2) Articles are not living things with genomes subject to mutation and selection pressures.
(3) Evolution already produced the article (i.e. evolution produced the human brain that wrote it).

 

[Revoltingest]

Looking at post #28, I thought of a question, but then the answer leaped out right at me.......
Why is it that the most fervent critics of evolution don't know even the basics of it?
It's because the most fervent critics of evolution don't know even the basics of it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is it that the most fervent critics of evolution don't know even the basics of it?
It's because the most fervent critics of evolution don't know even the basics of it.

But if it wasn't for those critics who know little of it, I wouldn't know so much about it. Evolution isn't exactly a high priority for me to study, but because there are so many people who insist their fallacies are correct, I had to learn to attempt to correct them.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if it wasn't for those critics who know little of it, I wouldn't know so much about it. Evolution isn't exactly a high priority for me to study, but because there are so many people who insist their fallacies are correct, I had to learn to attempt to correct them.

Sounds win-win to me!

 

[Sapiens]

No such thing as 'at the top of the evolutionary chain'.

There is no Evolutionary Chain, at least in the sense he's using the term ... it's a bush.

 

[Kirran]

There is no Evolutionary Chain, at least in the sense he's using the term ... it's a bush.

Indeed. A most tangled bush.

With no intent to it, which I think is the OP's misconception.

 

[dust1n]

Well you must also show how intelligent design works. You can simply start with human design, then cut down the theory to a general theory of design, and extrapolate the theory to the universe in general. How exactly does human design work? What exactly happens in the designing brain, what is the exact physics of it, the mathematics, and so on? Have you got any reference to an actual attempt to make scientific theory about it?

I'd love to have your input on my thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-multiple-watchmakers-analogy.180450/

 

[Awkward Fingers]

It would be lovely, if for once, the person posting "sure fire unsolvable problems with evolution" understood it, even a little bit..
....strange how that is NEVER the case...
wonder what that means, if we think about it...

 

[methylatedghosts]

Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain.

Bollocks. Just because you have an ego doesn't mean you really are any better

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

I think that gets to the heart of the question

Evolution is an intuitive, elegant, satisfying, comprehensive explanation for one of life's biggest questions. And that's the problem, reality isn't that easy.

Functional complexity arising through chance + time, versus arising according to specific predetermined instructions, blueprints, design - is a familiar debate, the former assertion used to be applied to physical reality- what we now call classical physics.

It was far more directly observable and testable than evolution ever was. So much so it was considered utterly 'immutable' and similarly made God 'redundant' as such a comprehensive explanation

And yet against overwhelming academic consensus, the apparently simple laws we superficially observed, turned out to be the result of specific instructions, and mysterious unpredictable forces at a deeper level of physical reality, not the explanation of it. Just as the 'ignorant masses' had correctly deduced all along.

Evolution as taught in schools today parallels this, except that it is far more academic in nature, far less directly testable, and it's ideological implications far greater.

 

[viole]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

Little question. If evolution is not true, why did God create us (allegedely in His image) to look like like hairless chimps?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution is an intuitive, elegant, satisfying, comprehensive explanation for one of life's biggest questions. And that's the problem, reality isn't that easy.

A god hypothesis is for more simpler on paper, and is not demonstrable or predictable from a scientific perspective. Evolution only answers who life came to be in its present state on earth. One day we may even come to know Darwinian Evolution as an earth-like progression of evolution as we come to learn about life on other planets and how it evolved under different environments, climates, and conditions, or even come to realize that Natural Selection is too broad of a scope that overlooks things we aren't seeing now - assuming we even ever find life on another planet.

 

[viole]

Read the articles & tell me how using your intelligence you'd evolve first article randomly w/o Intelligence.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions concerning the intelligence and lack of randomness of whomever wrote those articles

Ciao

- viole