Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny

Explanations for the BIg Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, the appearance of first life on earth, the information content in the DNA of even the simplist cells, the Cambrian explosion, insanely comples molecular machines, and human reason and morality all fall outside the explanatory power of the neo-Darwinsim to which you mindlessly cling.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

I am a scientist and I don't accept the Darwinian theory of evolution has been shown to be correct. It has obvious contradictions that many qualified empirical scientists have addressed.

The lunacy of those legislators influenced by the Theocratic Right represents serious ignorance of science as well as the essential teachings of the world religions - in the US, usually the result of the many ignorant and superstitious notions of the actual content and meaning of the Bible.

A science that is commonly termed “empirical,” is based on actual observation and personal experience, observations and experience that can be tested and repeated by others under strictly defined external conditions. This is knowledge gathered and synthesized by only one of the cognitive powers of the human psyche.

As Wolfgang Pauli, awarded the Noble Prize in physics in 1945, said, "It would be satisfactory ... if [the laws of] physics and the psyche were seen as complementary."

Clarke,
I'm glad that you don't accept the modern Darwinian line of poop. Congrats on a wise and couragous stand. You should sign the above document if you are appropriately qualified. The problem with many modern Darwinists is that they (either through arrogance or ignorance) refuse to admit to the real issues inherent in the theory they expouse of a completely material and undirected world.

And as an aside, I'm sure you're aware that 'lunacy of legislators' is these days an unnecessarily redundant phrase. I don't know much about their legislative efforts but they, in fairness, are responding to a valid wish to combat the increasing (and increasingly indefensible) materialsm invading our schools and culture.

Lebrea,
You should define a term like 'evolution' before you use it. It's true that Darwin addressed only the diversification of life only. The problem is his followers have expanded the claim to be a totally materialist world. Take the Darwinian poster boy Richards Dawkins when he said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest". Clearly such a statement is an overrerach well beyond current knowledge (and further, a statement that gets more dificult to defend with each passing day).

The only reason many Christians don't oppose Darwinain materiist thinking is that they haven't actually addressed the question " Can God direct an inherently undirected process?". The logical fallacy therein must be obvious.

Clarke,
I'm glad that you don't accept the modern Darwinian line of poop. Congrats on a wise and couragous stand. You should sign the above document if you are appropriately qualified. The problem with many modern Darwinists is that they (either through arrogance or ignorance) refuse to admit to the real issues inherent in the theory they expouse of a completely material and undirected world.

And as an aside, I'm sure you're aware that 'lunacy of legislators' is these days an unnecessarily redundant phrase. I don't know much about their legislative efforts but they, in fairness, are responding to a valid wish to combat the increasing (and increasingly indefensible) materialsm invading our schools and culture.

Lebrea,
You should define a term like 'evolution' before you use it. It's true that Darwin addressed only the diversification of life only. The problem is his followers have expanded the claim to be a totally materialist world. Take the Darwinian poster boy Richards Dawkins when he said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest". Clearly such a statement is an overrerach well beyond current knowledge (and further, a statement that gets more dificult to defend with each passing day).

The only reason many Christians don't oppose Darwinain materiist thinking is that they haven't actually addressed the question " Can God direct an inherently undirected process?". The logical fallacy therein must be obvious.

Ken, you never know what you're talking about in these discussions. You should stop... or at least pay attention to what Lebrea has to say. And it's Einstein, Dyson and Hawking (the three greatest theoretical physicists who ever lived) who've explained how the universe began and expanded, not Darwin.

As for the biological aspects of your little rant... utter nonsense. All of it's been debunked a thousand times, but as usual, you and your cohorts cheerfully pretend that never happened. But it did, of course, your Mexican pathologist notwithstanding.

Clark, I have a Master of Science degree in Biology and Environmental Science, but I'm not sure I understood your comment. The Theory of Evolution per se isn't really up for debate among biologists. It is self-evidently the only explanation for speciation that makes any sense. And it's the only thing that allows us to track relationships back through millions of years. There is no dispute over the Theory. However, there remain mechanisms that drive and direct evolutionary expansion that are not fully understood. It's not the same thing, and to hear (see) a scientist say mechanism uncertainty in some facets calls evolution itself into question is very strange. It's sort of like saying that the Theory of Gravity is wrong and gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand what creates it (which we don't). It's just as silly as Ken's rant.

Chuck,
Hawking's contention (most attractive to him anyway) that "the universe was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing" is hardly a satisfying explanation of what triggered the Big Bang. There is no First Cause there. ZIp.

Likewise (for instance) explain the origin of information in the first life? Your reference to the use of one after the other "just-so" stories masquerading as fact when 'supposition' is a better term for this and many other aspects of the world we see is scientism not science.

That you must defend a Godless reality is a philiospical or religious starting point, not a reasonable scientific conclusion.

Ken, simply as an intellectual exercise, belief in the self-creation from nothing of a being (let's call it a god) capable of creating a universe makes less sense than the universe expanding from an infinitesimally small package of near infinite energy to its present configuration.

In short, something started from damn-all, and it makes far less sense that the result was an intelligent being, than that the result was a randomly developing physical universe as energy accreted and converted itself to matter.

BTW - Bitching about evolution because it led to "materialism" is about the silliest argument I've ever come across. Whatever kind of thinking evolution leads to... it is or it ain't -- thoughts notwithstanding (Darwinism doesn't exist except in the minds of people who don't know better). It's simply absurd to say that the problem with evolution is that it leads to people thinking things you don't like (just a note here -- religions are far more guilty of that).

And just to address Lebrea's comment just above... Whether god exists or not isn't the point. His existence is untestable, as are his impacts or lack thereof on the physical world.

Thanks for sharing! Now featured on Gather Spirituality Essentials!

Joy Bee,
The childish behavior of these supposed "grown-ups" seems evident to me - and I expect to most children. who are not intimidated by ignorant parents.

Childish behavior is pretty hard not to see and unfortunately not worth wasting time on trying to reason with.