• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
You refuse to even consider my definition and you have no definition and then you ask me to prove something fits my definition!!!

You see no problem with this?

I'm not even asking you to accept my definition but merely to try it on and see if it fits. Once you do then I can point to evidence and logic to support it.

People have a habit of attributing behavior in other species to "instinct" but in reality animals simply think differently. They act on what they know and we act on what we believe.
I don't see a problem with someone making claims actually supporting and defending those claims. Otherwise, they are just peers defining reality for us.

More claims defining reality. Now we must not look, but rather accept that all animals think and differently from us. Don't look for evidence behind that curtain. Accept what a peer tells us is reality.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You refuse to even consider my definition and you have no definition and then you ask me to prove something fits my definition!!!

You see no problem with this?

I'm not even asking you to accept my definition but merely to try it on and see if it fits. Once you do then I can point to evidence and logic to support it.

People have a habit of attributing behavior in other species to "instinct" but in reality animals simply think differently. They act on what they know and we act on what we believe.

I am not asking for definitions, cladking.

I am asking for to show evidence that back up your claims.

Either present your evidence or cite a source (or more) that have evidence to support your claims.

I don’t want more of your evasions and excuses. You say all the evidence in the world, support your claims, and yet when asked, you repeatedly either ignore the requests or you do what you often do - give us the runaround.

So where are your evidence or where are your sources?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, the mysterious "I have linked those numbers before" answer without an attempt to link them now. It would seem so easy to link them again right here. Since I cannot read this "previously linked" material myself, not knowing where it is. But that is the entire point of a response like that isn't it. It just keeps the game alive so that peers can continue defining reality for us.

Yes! The difference is that others just say they've linked stuff before and haven't whereas I actually have.

Once again I don't have permission to use the work of the guy who actually generated the numbers so chiefly out of respect for him I must link to another site which I do not necessarily recommend or disrecommend;

The Pyramid Texts Do Not Obey Zipf's Law - Graham Hancock Official Website

"Everything" I say is "true" and if I were challenged I would defend it.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes! The difference is that others just say they've linked stuff before and haven't whereas I actually have.

Once again I don't have permission to use the work of the guy who actually generated the numbers so chiefly out of respect for him I must link to another site which I do not necessarily recommend or disrecommend;

The Pyramid Texts Do Not Obey Zipf's Law - Graham Hancock Official Website

"Everything" I say is "true" and if I were challenged I would defend it.
You have? When did that happen? I have never seen it.

Good grief!!! Graham Hancock. You might as well link in Grimm's Fairytales. Solid support to an argument demands reliable sources of information. And I do not recall links to some out there website about pyramids supports any claims regarding biology and evolution. Randomly posting some irrelevant link is not supporting your claims about biology.

Nothing you have stated regarding biology and life is true and when challenged, you run, stall or start in on some grand conspiracy about peers.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes! The difference is that others just say they've linked stuff before and haven't whereas I actually have.

Once again I don't have permission to use the work of the guy who actually generated the numbers so chiefly out of respect for him I must link to another site which I do not necessarily recommend or disrecommend;

The Pyramid Texts Do Not Obey Zipf's Law - Graham Hancock Official Website

"Everything" I say is "true" and if I were challenged I would defend it.
All observed change in living things is sudden is not true. You don't defend it. You just repeat the claim. All I have seen you do is try to shift the burden of proof.

Bottleneck events create diversity is not true. I have not seen you defend that.

"Survival of the fittest" is a very poor alternative, out of date, and practically useless definition for natural selection. The only defense you have offered is that you use it erroneously because you claim it is easier to type the wrong thing than it is to type the right thing.

Consciousness is life. Not so much incorrect as meaningless.

Speciation is the result of some behavioral change in the ancestral species that causes a new species to evolve is not true. No defense, explanation or support ever offered.

I could fill up pages with the claims that you have made about biology and evolution and never defended, explained or supported. I and many others have. Nothing is ever forthcoming from you to back up your claims.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes! The difference is that others just say they've linked stuff before and haven't whereas I actually have.

Once again I don't have permission to use the work of the guy who actually generated the numbers so chiefly out of respect for him I must link to another site which I do not necessarily recommend or disrecommend;

The Pyramid Texts Do Not Obey Zipf's Law - Graham Hancock Official Website

"Everything" I say is "true" and if I were challenged I would defend it.
Reading through that site, it looks like this isn't the only place where you lob claims that you do not defend.

Are you really trying to define reality for us and expect us to accept your claims without question as if they are undisputed facts. That so much fits your erroneous definition of peer it is uncanny.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
It is false enough. Even that one paper you beat to death as the sole source declaring the veracity of your claims only states that it deals with assumptions that relate to the paper. Certainly not all of them. And you pushing forward the boundaries of science all by yourself too.

more of your typical dishonest tricks to confuse the uninformed readers.

First, As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble's lecture was presenting the latest in the field and referenced many related scientific studies by many other scientists.

Second, the lecture summarized all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis and specifically said about these assumptions: “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED IN VARIOUS WAYS AND TO VARYING DEGREES” , "Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas".

See the link below and # 781.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
They can certainly be considered as ancestors. Your statement makes no sense. I can't speak for you, but all my ancestors were of the same species and are considered my ancestors.

Seriously? This is ridiculous. The context here is evolutionary biology not your lineage.

The argument is about transitional forms/intermediate species. The alleged common ancestor as well as all transitional forms were all different species.

Neanderthals were the same species as modern human. Being the same species with the ability of interbreeding, Neanderthals cannot be considered as transitional forms/intermediate species.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
When asked for detail about your position of intelligent design which you mentioned first, you always dismiss those questions with a wave of the hand claiming this thread isn't about that and referencing the OP. Apparently, you don't consider that to be true except for things you want to avoid discussing. I don't believe the thread is specifically about the need to replace the theory of evolution. Certainly nothing that could be considered a delusion of Darwin anyway.

The title of the thread is “Darwin's Illusion”. The actual subject is about the ToE being false. This is the focus of the thread.

Fallacious arguments typically depend on moving the goalposts to avoid exposing their weakness. This is exactly what you are trying to do here which has nothing to do with my argument about the Modern Synthesis.


Regardless, I did touch many times on my position. see the following posts:

#169
Objective vs. Perceived Reality and the Principle of Causality.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 9 | Religious Forums


#172
Faith vs. Atheism

Darwin's Illusion | Page 9 | Religious Forums


#226
Consciousness/Intelligence.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 12 | Religious Forums


#236
Life is an essential prerequisite to evolution.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 12 | Religious Forums


#252
DNA Function as a Machine Code Programming.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 13 | Religious Forums


#349
Order vs. Intellegence.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 18 | Religious Forums


# 424
Life is a manifestation of intelligence. Every form of life is perfect.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums


#487
The intelligently guided process.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums


#490
Levels of Causality.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums


#132 on page 7 of the thread “Necessary Being: Exists?”

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

Of course. If Denis Nobel declares it, then it must be so. That doesn't sound very scientific coming from someone claiming to be enlightening us ignorant masses though. You know, accepting things without question. Not scientific at all.

Nonsense. Denis Nobel’s lecture was not a presentation of himself or his personal view. Denis Nobel as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) was presenting the latest in the field and referenced related scientific studies by many other scientists.

You don’t have to accept anything without question. I never said that. Read, search and verify the facts for yourself on your own. I did provide multiple references in my posts but you typically act as if you didn’t see it and insist to accept an obsolete mid 20th century theory without question.

It is called claims. Specifically that the theory of evolution needs immediate revision. A fact still not accepted by the scientific consensus and very much debatable. You can declare it all you like, but you haven't demonstrated it.

It seems like we do read and understand you, despite the volume of material that seems like it is there more to overwhelm than enlighten.

With respect to evolutionary biology, I never make a claim of my own without substantiation. It wouldn’t have any value. It’s not my claim. See #781.

Science is ever changing. The paradigm is shifting slowly due to the dogmatic resistance but the change will eventually materialize. See #911.

Given the volume of irrelevant material you post, I am surprised that you would feel the comfort to chastise others for doing that in your personal opinion.

By the way, directed mutation still hasn't been demonstrated. You seem to have gotten quiet on that.

On one hand, you keep complaining about the volume of material, on the other hand you keep acting as if you didn’t see it and continue asking for demonstration.

Lets try something different. With respect to directed mutation, focus on the previously provided example below (copied from #781).

We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days.

See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
No they have not.

Meaningless denial.

If Gerd declares it, then it must be so. You've dropped his name (among others) at least a dozen times on this thread. Didn't you mention in an early post that people accepting and supporting the modern synthesis were notorious name droppers? I think you did. Interesting.

Whether it will or won't, the problem is people that use all the notorious creationist tactics and logical fallacies to try and force a paradigm shift through without question or recognized need. Many of the names you drop don't necessarily see the need to shift so much as integrate new knowledge into the existing framework. Or so I have read. Perhaps you haven't read as widely as you allude.

I’m citing scientists such as Gerd B. Müller, Denis Noble and Stephen J Gould not only because they’re all scientists of the highest caliber but more importantly because they’re all evolutionists without any bias to my side of the argument.

The 2016 Royal Society scientific discussion was about “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology”. Gerd B. Müller word was not a personal view, as he said “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”. See #911.

Here is the link for Gerd B. Müller article that was published on 2017.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)


Here is the link for the PDF of the same article.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
I am acknowledging you have responded with an opinion that is not based on any evidence of a direct or even indirect impact of the theory of evolution on human morality or its basis. That is your opinion and one that is formed on your personal views and not on scientific fact.

In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin said almost nothing about humans. He knew that such a radical view about humans would damage his general argument about evolution. But in his Descent of Man (1871), he applied his theory of evolution to humans to complete his original argument in the Origin of Species. He focused entirely on the evolution of human beings. In his Descent of Man, Darwin attempted to explain everything human as an effect of natural or sexual selection. Morality was no exception. He wanted to address skepticism regarding natural selection being insufficient cause to account for human’s moral and intellectual capacities.

Darwin argued that natural selection was the cause of morality as certain traits proved beneficial in the struggle for survival. Which is self-contradictory in the sense that the allegedly evolved trait “sympathy” acts against natural selection but Darwin argued that in a tribal competition or conflict, the tribe with more sympathetic faithful members who aid and defend each other succeed and conquer the other. HE MADE TRIBAL AND RACIAL CONFLICT THE ENGINE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION. A very dangerous principle that legitimizes racial extermination as the natural law to move forward not just in the past, but the future as well.

He predicted that along with driving “the anthropomorphous apes” to extinction, the more evolved races furthest from the apes will continue to exterminate the less evolved savages closer to the apes. He expressed that clearly in his words ”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

He observed that as a result, “the break will be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

In the closing lines in “The Descent of Man.” Darwin wrote: “ For my own part I would as soon be descended from ….a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen…..to the very summit of the organic scale ; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.”

Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

Darwin is considered to be a scientist, social philosopher and shaper of modern consciousness. Anyone who has glanced at “The Descent of Man” (second edition) could make such an assertion that racism was evident in Darwin’s writings.


The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

See the link below for New York Times article “Darwin in Full” with respect to racism in Darwin’s writings.

Darwin in Full - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

See the link below for “The Descent of Man.”

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)

Knowledge in general impacts society. By your estimation we should just stop learning.

False generalization. Not all knowledge is equal. Some knowledge can be false and with a damaging influence.

We had no problem employing advances in science and technology to warfare long before Darwin wrote Origins. That pace doesn't appear to have changed.

Irrelevant nonsense, I’m not arguing that Darwin invented the atomic bomb. I’m arguing that Darwin’s ideas especially with respect to the so-called scientific racism, negatively impacted humanity and inspired false justifications for wars/genocide in the sense that humanity should embrace the natural course of history.

See the link below for the article “What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany?” I don’t want hear any nonsense of the kind it wasn’t Darwin but the blame is on Herbert Spencer. It’s irrelevant. The issue at stake is the damaging influence of the evolutionary ideas, not people who contributed to that influence or people who committed the actual crimes.

What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany? | History Hit

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on World War

Social Darwinism | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on Nazi Germany

Social Darwinism - HISTORY

Religion impacts morality and action on that morality much more widely and deeply than any scientific theory could or has. Look how many people have and continue to twist the Bible or the Quran to justify brutality, slavery, rape, racism, mass murder and on and on and on and on. Yet, you are not advocating they be abolished while claiming a theory that hasn't had anything like that sort of impact be abolished.

Irrelevant argument. This can be totally another discussion. You’re making a False Dichotomy.

The best part. The best part is that you are advocating at the same time that the theory needs further synthesis that would not change any of the moral implications you claim for it, not that there is one of the sort you claim

False. Further synthesis is advocated by the top synthesis in the field not me. My concern is limited to informing others of the status of the ToE (MS) today which can be summarized that the modern synthesis was disproved and no other theory was established. This is the current status of the ToE today. Obsolete contradicting fragments that had been disproved.

That is just one example among many that has eliminated any potential credibility that you may have had in this argument. And further evidence that indicates to me your agenda is not as stated and comes to something more, but not new.

Nonsensical wishful thinking, why don’t you enlighten me and tell all of us what is your understanding or imagination of this alleged agenda? Speak your mind if you will.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
That is just the typical denial based on an ID creationism bias. There is no evidence that divinely created life couldn't evolve as described by the theory of evolution.

Sure, divinely created life is necessarily a manifestation of extreme intelligence and must have the intrinsic capability to adapt and respond intelligently to the variables within an environment. But again, if the origin is divinely created, then everything that emerges from it is necessarily created. Acceptance of the principle of divine creation would be a total change of the mindset.

Under completely natural origins, it would not be completely random, but directed by the actions defined by natural laws.

Nothing is random. Neither mutations nor the variables at play in nature.

Did you ever wonder what defines the nature or the calibrated behavior of the natural laws itself (level B per #490)? Doesn’t it demand an explanation as well?

That is another typically creationist tactic to claim total randomness in natural processes when such a claim has no support of evidence.

Why do I need any tactic at all? Is it to deceive myself or deceive others to believe something that I don’t? Would that make any sense? Think about it.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
The scientific view would indicate we look for natural processes for the origin of life. A scientist does not have to accept the theory of evolution for this to be true. I imagine all those scientists whose names you drop should know this too.

What is the justification for this?

Again, fundamental questions with respect to the beginnings are beyond the jurisdictions of science. Science can only deal with what exists in the physical realm and can be observed. How the observed physical system came to existence is beyond science. How the entire universe came to existence from nothing or life from nonliving matter under abiotic conditions is not attainable through science. Science begins to function only after the observable system begins to exist not before. Objective reality is absolute, not limited to the relative jurisdictions of our science.

A rational approach would be to avoid a single unfalsifiable hypothesis. In principle, any change can be attributed to either one of the following two competing hypotheses:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.
B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

Observations may support one or another. We cannot pick or choose. If observations support “Intelligently Guided Change”, then it has to be accepted.

There’re no random changes in nature. Whether you like it or not, beneficial mutations are always directed. It’s never random.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
Do you ever say or write something that are true?

Like every creationists here, you all have the tendencies of making things up, spreading misinformation.

If anything, today’s molecular biology and biochemistry - “today” as in the last 50 years, including present day - have all tested the various evolutionary mechanisms (eg Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc) as “probable” and “verified”.

These mechanisms, have each explained the different processes of how populations of life adapt over time, genetically; Evolution is about biodiversity, and this would mean changes and speciation to different degrees, and at different rates.

Again, the argument is specifically about the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis as follows:

- First, genetic change is random.

- Second, genetic change is gradual.

- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

Read attached material in # 753 & #781. It clarifies why these assumptions are disproved. Denis Noble said, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED IN VARIOUS WAYS AND TO VARYING DEGREES”

In addition to the scientific articles, the lectures below on YouTube would help.

2012 Suzhou, China, in the international conference of physiological sciences.
British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism - YouTube

2013 Birmingham, UK, Professor Denis Noble delivers the IUPS President's Lecture.
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

Different rates, because changes to bacteria occurred in shorter period of times than most multicellular organisms (MCO, like animals, plants and fungi).

See below (copied from #781). The results below show extremely fast, directed mutations. The same results are repeatedly seen and cannot be random. It’s neither gradual nor random but rather quick directed mutations.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in only 11 days.

See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

So far, there have been no alternative models to replace the theory of Evolution.

What alternative theory do you think is better at explaining the natural processes of biodiversity (speciation)?

Adaptation as a result of directed mutations. It’s not an evolutionary process. Actual process is quite different. In the claimed evolution process, natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutation. In the actual adaptation process, organisms utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment.

The mutations produce varieties such as the example of Galapagos finches but these varieties of finches will never be anything other than finches. Organisms may adept but they don’t transform to totally different species. Even if we try to use artificial selection to make new species (that are able to reproduce), it will never produce a new species. It will always be just varieties. Even if a mule or a liger may be argued to be different species but they are unable to reproduce.

If humans evolved from a common ancestor through speciation, then some of this hominin species should coexist today at least in isolated geographical areas. They cannot all disappear. See #718 and #776

I would hope you are not talking about Intelligent Design creationism?

ID is unfalsifiable and untestable concept, so it doesn't even qualify as “hypothesis”,

Why unfalsifiable?

Any change can be attributed to either one of the following two hypotheses:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.
B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

Only observations would confirm whether a change is random or intelligently guided. Observations may prove it or disprove it. It is definitely falsifiable.

Intelligent Design still relied on superstitious belief in supernatural entity of a god, but now creationists called god

Why superstitious? Can you logically claim that whatever is beyond our capacity of direct observation cannot exist?

The universe is a contingent entity dependent on a cause; a cause is necessary. Yet everything physical came to existence after the beginning. The existence beyond the beginning is necessarily supernatural. The cause of the universe has to be supernatural/unphysical. Even so the supernatural influence is beyond any possible observation and beyond the laws of nature itself, but its manifestations in the physical realm can be observed. In fact, the instantiation of the entire physical realm in reality is only possible as a manifestation of a non-contingent supernatural influence.

An apple falls off a tree because of gravity. Gravity (as well as electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, nuclear efficiency, etc.) is not a brute fact, it’s a contingent entity that started with the Big Bang. It demands a cause, yet the cause beyond the Big Bang is not natural. The cause is supernatural but it must exist. The levels of causality have to end at a causeless brute (supernatural) fact that explains every thing that followed. The origin/root cause for everything is necessarily non-physical and causeless. Without the non-contingent origin, nothing contingent may exist. No relative is possible without the absolute.

We have to agree first on the basic principal that God/causal influence on the instantiation of the physical realm in reality (creation), necessarily means that God is neither a physical entity nor subject to the influence of the physical laws of nature but rather God is the higher influence that causes the laws of nature itself to exist. Once this principle is settled, then God existence beyond the physical realm is necessarily beyond direct observation and can be understood only through the observation of his influence or manifestations within the physical realm.

The physical realm as a contingent/caused being didn’t appear out of nothing. It was caused by an influence that is non-physical.

See #490 and #132 on page 7 of the thread “Necessary Being: Exists?”

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

but now creationists called god - “Designer” instead of “Creator”.

Changing god from Creator to Designer, doesn’t help the ID argument. It is still a “God did it” belief, but now they disguised creationism as the “Designer did it”.

Designer did it, isn’t an explanation.

Design is a plan towards a goal. Design is a manifestation of intelligence (which is in turn a manifestation of consciousness). Intelligence/perfection is one of God’s attributes with manifestations in the physical realm that can be clearly seen everywhere, from the entire universe, to a single living cell or even at the atomic and molecular level of the nonliving matter.

Rationality, order, design, causal relationships in nature and our ability to perceive this rationality is what makes science possible and allow it to flourish. Founders of modern science were very favorable to this idea of God’s causal influence on the world and they built it into their scientific work, it wasn't something they kept separate as a theological proposition, they thought science itself was pointing to the design of an intelligent and powerful being.

Isaac Newton had the notion that the laws of nature are manifestation of constant spirit action that imposed upon matter the order that can be perceived by the scientists, which we can be described mathematically as laws of nature.

Isaac Newton said in his general scholium to the principia, "Though these bodies (the planets) may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Albert Einstein believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. The point here is not promoting Newton’s or Einstein’s understanding of God but rather making the assertion that the understanding of God’s causal influence on the world is not a contradiction to science and was actually embraced by the founders of modern science.

Just as there no physical evidence of God, there are no evidence for the Intelligent Designer.

Every intelligent design is evidence for the Intelligent Designer. The entire universe is an intelligent design (cosmological constant). Every single cell is intelligent design (#252). Every atom (strong nuclear force/ atomic internal intelligence) is intelligent design. See #226.

Logic necessitates that God’s Being has to be of an absolutely unique nature unlike anything else in existence.

Your approach to the assessment of the understanding of God is fallacious. You apply an illogical/inapplicable way of thinking towards that understanding which necessarily drives your false assumptions.

First, you have to know that God is understood as the origin, absolute, non-contingent, non-caused existence. Meaning that, God is not a relative contingent entity but rather the cause for everything in existence including the universe/physical realm and all natural laws itself that do not exist on its own as a brute fact but rather as caused contingent entities that emerged as a manifestation of a higher causal influence.

That said, you cannot apply same approach that you apply to understand physical entities within the physical realm in your attempt to understand God. This approach is illogical/inapplicable.

God is not a physical entity/being. Cannot be observed directly. Not subject to the influence of physical laws, and beyond spacetime itself. God is the cause of spacetime, not contained in spacetime.

The point is, you can’t invite God to your scientific lab to conduct some experiments to gain an understanding of his Being. Its not possible for us to understand the nature of God’s being simply because its not contingent/physical. You can only understand his attributes (not his being) through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
If you think Intelligent Design is a viable alternative, then you should know that neither biochemistry, nor molecular biology, validate Intelligent Design.

False, latest studies of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology are some of the best examples of intelligent design. See the article below by Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, “How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
Again, with the blaming Darwin with everything illegal, not only with killing, murders, genocides and wars, but now of stealing too.

None of these were Darwin’s doing, because they all predated long before Darwin was born.

Do you still insist on this irrelevant nonsense? Didn’t you get it yet?

Causes/motivations and responsible people/criminals for the actions/crimes of the past, present and future are different in each case. Hitler is not responsible for the crimes committed by Genghis Khan or any other before him. Nonetheless, Hitler is guilty of his own crimes. He has his own reasons/motivations and committed his own crimes.

Obviously, Genghis Khan reasons/motivation for the crimes that he committed were not related to the ToE or Social Darwinism but that has nothing to do with the fact that Nazi Germany and Hitler’s reasons/motivation for their own crimes are definitely driven by the adaptation of the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory

Sure, crimes predated Darwin but how is that relevant to the negative influence of the ToE/Social Darwinism on humanity? It’s a fallacious argument. See # 1031

As to wars. None of Darwin’s works affected political policies and military strategy. Darwin was never a politician or political leader, nor was he ever general or strategist.

Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

Darwin is considered to be a scientist, social philosopher and shaper of modern consciousness. Anyone who has glanced at “The Descent of Man” (second edition) could make such an assertion that racism was evident in Darwin’s writings.

The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

See the link below for New York Times article “Darwin in Full” with respect to racism in Darwin’s writings.

Darwin in Full - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

See the link below for “The Descent of Man.”

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on World War

Social Darwinism | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on Nazi Germany

Social Darwinism - HISTORY

If you want to blame any for wars, then why not -
  • Sun Tzu on military strategy (The Art Of War);
  • Julius Caesar for his writings on tactics during his military campaigns (memoir on Gallic Wars) and civil war (another memoir);
  • Genghis Khan for his very rapid conquests exceeded territories gained by Alexander the Great’s empire;
  • all those involved in the 14th-15th centuries Hundred Years’ War, between England and France;
  • the Reformation and Counter Reformation, which included the Thirty Years’ War; the death toll of 8 million (including civilians) was never eclipsed until World War I;
  • the Prussian Frederick the Great for his involvement in the Seven Years’ War and his writing on Interior Line strategy, in which influenced Hitler’s strategy;
  • the 18th century American Revolution with George Washington and the British generals on the other side;
  • the late 18th century French Revolution with Napoleon Bonaparte and his political & military strategy, called the Grand Strategy, that influenced strategies in the American Civil War (on both sides), the various wars in 19th century Europe, and Napoleon’s Grand Strategy was very influential to strategies on all sides in the two World Wars;
  • and of course, the American Civil War, which have also influenced the 20th century wars.
I mentioned these wars involved social upheavals, political policies and military strategies that were far more influential to wars in the 20th century that not only included the World Wars, but also the Cold War, the strategies and policies of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong than Darwin’s Natural Selection.

None of that is relevant to the negative influence of the ToE/Social Darwinism on humanity. No one claimed that the ToE is responsible for all conflicts of the human race since the beginning of time or that the ToE is the only contributor to human conflicts in the modern times.

Nonetheless, the ToE/Social Darwinism greatly impacted humanity and inspired false justifications of racism wars/genocide in the sense that humanity should embrace the natural course of history that tribal/racial conflict is the engine of human evolution to purify the human race and to exterminate the inferior.

See the link below for the nazi racial ideology that adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Even the Bible has genocides and wars (eg Jericho in Joshua, the Levite in Judges, God and Samuel ordering Saul to completely exterminate the Amalekites).
Irrelevant argument. False Dichotomy.

And you are still clearly and falsely blaming Darwin for Social Darwinism, which he didn’t write. You are still forgetting Herbert Spencer, who was the author.

Racism was evident in Darwin’s writings as evident in “The Descent of Man”.

He endorsed the eugenic theories, approved social Darwinism, and was among the progenitors of scientific racism. See # 1031

See the link below for the article “What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany?” I don’t want hear any nonsense of the kind it wasn’t Darwin but the blame is on Herbert Spencer. It’s irrelevant. The issue at stake is the damaging influence of the evolutionary ideas, not people who contributed to that influence or people who committed the actual crimes.

What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany? | History Hit

Darwin never wrote anything that advocated stealing, murdering or genocide.

Why is that denial? Can’t you read? See the quotes below from “The Descent of Man”.

”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

“ For my own part I would as soon be descended from ….a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen…..to the very summit of the organic scale ; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.”

See the link below for “The Descent of Man.”

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)

Again, even so Darwin did involve racism, murdering and genocide in his writing as explained above but the argument is not about what did Darwin advocate but rather about the evident negative influence of his ideas on humanity.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
You are talking about WW2, Hitler, Nazi & the Holocaust.

There have been racism against Jews, on the basis of religions and on the basis of ethnicity, long before Darwin, and long before the WW2’s Holocaust.

Do you really think that anti-Semitic in Europe started only from Darwin’s time and later, eg Nazi Germany?

What a confused Nonsense?

Historical suffering of the Jews has nothing to do with racism/genocide crimes committed against the Jews by Nazi Germany (Holocaust) that was indeed driven by the nazi racial ideology that adopted social Darwinism.

See the link below for the article “VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA: NAZI RACIAL IDEOLOGY” on the Holocaust Encyclopedia as published by The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive Holocaust resource online.

Here is a quote about the Nazi Ideology of Race:
“The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war—even constant war—was a part of nature, a part of the human condition.”

“The Nazis defined Jews as a “race.” Regarding the Jewish religion as irrelevant, the Nazis attributed a wide variety of negative stereotypes about Jews and “Jewish” behavior to an unchanging biologically determined heritage that drove the “Jewish race,” like other races, to struggle to survive by expansion at the expense of other races.”

See the link and get yourself informed of the facts. I think your fallacies argument is not driven by ignorance as much as it’s driven by bias. Stop your nonsense argument.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
So like you and @LIIA, where you both misattributed Survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism on Darwin,

This is what you repeatedly fail to understand. The argument is about the evident influence of the idea not the responsible people. But regardless if you insist to shift the argument to whether Darwin’s influence is responsible for Social Darwinism, then, he is absolutely responsible. Social Darwinism/survival of the fittest is absolutely a product of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas/natural selection.

Only an ignorant would claim otherwise. Social Darwinism is with no shadow of a doubt driven by influence of Darwin’s evolutionary idea which proved to have very damaging impact on humanity whether you admit or not.

Yes, Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and Darwin used it later in his writing. Regardless “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” is about the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. Darwin approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin focused on biology, but Spencer imagined that evolutionary thinking could be applied much more broadly to govern entire societies. Social Darwinism is absolutely a product of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. This is not a subject for argument. It’s a fact.

See the article below about the legacy of Herbert Spencer published by the Smithsonian Magazine.

The Complicated Legacy of Herbert Spencer, the Man Who Coined 'Survival of the Fittest' | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

See the link below for the nazi racial ideology that adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory, which was the cause and the justification for their crimes against humanity.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
But Galton didn’t propose mass murder of population who were considered racially inferior. Eugenics have nothing to do with Evolution. All Galton proposal was that not to intermix superior people with inferior.

How can you make such a claim? Eugenics is inspired by Evolution and would not exist without Evolution.

Galton had discovered what he called regression to the mean, which posed a dilemma for him. How was natural selection going to work if traits under selection were always regressing to the mean? In his book, Natural Inheritance, Galton came up with a solution. Evolution had to occur by discontinuous changes that could not revert to the mean. Darwin’s vision of evolution by tiny incremental steps would be thwarted by regression to the mean. The changes that drove evolution must be discontinuous ones.

See the article below

Cousins: Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics - Gillham - 2009 - Significance - Wiley Online Library

But that was hijacked the Nazi eugenics program, where Hitler and his subordinates to commit genocide...but again, none of this related to Natural Selection.

Seriously?

See the link below for the article “VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA: NAZI RACIAL IDEOLOGY” on the Holocaust Encyclopedia as published by The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive Holocaust resource online.

"The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war—even constant war—was a part of nature, a part of the human condition."

“The Nazis defined Jews as a “race.” Regarding the Jewish religion as irrelevant, the Nazis attributed a wide variety of negative stereotypes about Jews and “Jewish” behavior to an unchanging biologically determined heritage that drove the “Jewish race,” like other races, to struggle to survive by expansion at the expense of other races.”

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)


See # 1031
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
What is the justification for this?

Again, fundamental questions with respect to the beginnings are beyond the jurisdictions of science. Science can only deal with what exists in the physical realm and can be observed. How the observed physical system came to existence is beyond science. How the entire universe came to existence from nothing or life from nonliving matter under abiotic conditions is not attainable through science. Science begins to function only after the observable system begins to exist not before. Objective reality is absolute, not limited to the relative jurisdictions of our science.

A rational approach would be to avoid a single unfalsifiable hypothesis. In principle, any change can be attributed to either one of the following two competing hypotheses:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.
B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

Observations may support one or another. We cannot pick or choose. If observations support “Intelligently Guided Change”, then it has to be accepted.

There’re no random changes in nature. Whether you like it or not, beneficial mutations are always directed. It’s never random.
Directed mutations are not known to occur and no one has verified that they do occur. You have no justification to continually claim that they do occur. You are demanding others follow one set of rules, while you follow another.

You have opinions. They are not facts. Continually appealing to the authority of a handful of scientists does not make your conclusion facts. Or theirs.

The false argument that it is guided change versus random change does not support your cause. The change in living things over time is not fully random. You know this. You avoid discussion of that and other topics like the plague.

Intelligently guided or non random change are not the origins of life. You have offered nothing that says that life has to have a specific sort of origin for evolution to occur.
 
Top