Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.

Started by Xavier, July 30, 2018, 12:33:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

I can only speak for myself, but science is no religion of mine.  I don't want to belong to a cult, one of the high priests of which is a bow-tie-wearing creepazoid with cartoons of pan-sexual ice cream orgies.  Who knows, maybe things would've been better without all this science, and the Enlightenment was nothing but the opening of Pandora's box.  But then again, we wouldn't have Spotify, Netflix, or air-conditioning.  We'd have horses instead of cars.  I live in the era in which I was born.

John Lamb

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
We don't have to consider evolution to see it.  Just imagine Gerry Matatics and an imam of ISIS trying to convert each other.

Either's more likely than Richard Dawkins ever expressing even a Socratic doubt about Darwinism.

QuoteI can only speak for myself, but science is no religion of mine.  I don't want to belong to a cult, one of the high priests of which is a bow-tie-wearing creepazoid with cartoons of pan-sexual ice cream orgies.  Who knows, maybe things would've been better without all this science, and the Enlightenment was nothing but the opening of Pandora's box.  But then again, we wouldn't have Spotify, Netflix, or air-conditioning.  We'd have horses instead of cars.  I live in the era in which I was born.

This is the propaganda: if you don't accept our (materialist) cosmological assumptions which we have surreptitiously attached to all scientific & technological discoveries, then you have no right to Spotify, Netflix, or air-conditioning.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Mono no aware

Quote from: John Lamb on August 01, 2018, 03:05:05 PMThe idea that the scientific method rests on skepticism is somewhat of a myth. From the time you are four years old to the day you gain your doctorate in biology, at what point do you begin to be "skeptical" about the theory of evolution? Answer: never, because your grades and academic advancement depend on accepting the theory of evolution as an assumption and working in that paradigm. If you are skeptical about it you will fail tests and invite ridicule upon yourself. Sure, you are allowed to express skepticism on minor issues from within the paradigm (once you get to a higher academic level), but to question the major premise/paradigm itself? Ridicule from almost the entire establishment. The consensus of the establishment is that "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution" - what room is there for skepticism?

I would concede this point easier if more of the critics of evolution did not have a religious bias.  As I said earlier, David Berlinski is the only prominent one I know of who does not.  On the other hand, I believe the statistics for the scientific community have them at two-thirds atheist: sizable, but not exclusive.  One of the foremost geneticists, Francis Collins, is a Christian.  The difference here suggests that one school is commencing with a bias, and selectively fitting in only that which supports it, and rejecting anything that does not; whereas the other is following the evidence, and if they care to be religious along with all that, then that's up to them.

We can even be anecdotal about "what room is there for skepticism?" if you like.   We can just ask Gloria Patri what kind of pushback he received on this forum as a believer who voiced skepticism of young earth creationism.  If you insist it cuts against the skeptic of evolution, then surely it cuts both ways.

Mono no aware

Quote from: John Lamb on August 01, 2018, 03:10:58 PMThis is the propaganda: if you don't accept our (materialist) cosmological assumptions which we have surreptitiously attached to all scientific & technological discoveries, then you have no right to Spotify, Netflix, or air-conditioning.

For good or for ill, it's been a package deal.  I hate cell phones.

John Lamb

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 03:21:45 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 01, 2018, 03:05:05 PMThe idea that the scientific method rests on skepticism is somewhat of a myth. From the time you are four years old to the day you gain your doctorate in biology, at what point do you begin to be "skeptical" about the theory of evolution? Answer: never, because your grades and academic advancement depend on accepting the theory of evolution as an assumption and working in that paradigm. If you are skeptical about it you will fail tests and invite ridicule upon yourself. Sure, you are allowed to express skepticism on minor issues from within the paradigm (once you get to a higher academic level), but to question the major premise/paradigm itself? Ridicule from almost the entire establishment. The consensus of the establishment is that "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution" - what room is there for skepticism?

I would concede this point easier if more of the critics of evolution did not have a religious bias.  As I said earlier, David Berlinski is the only prominent one I know of who does not.  On the other hand, I believe the statistics for the scientific community have them at two-thirds atheist: sizable, but not exclusive.  One of the foremost geneticists, Francis Collins, is a Christian.  The difference here suggests that one school is commencing with a bias, and selectively fitting in only that which supports it, and rejecting anything that does not; whereas the other is following the evidence, and if they care to be religious along with all that, then that's up to them.

We can even be anecdotal about "what room is there for skepticism?" if you like.   We can just ask Gloria Patri what kind of pushback he received on this forum as a believer who voiced skepticism of young earth creationism.  If you insist it cuts against the skeptic of evolution, then surely it cuts both ways.

Yes,

One school accepts whatever the Church teaches and is skeptical about what human science teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept a lot of the discoveries of human science, just not those which compromise Christian dogma.

The other school accepts whatever human science teaches and is skeptical about what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept many of the Church's teaching, just not those which compromise the dogmas of the scientific establishment.

It's a matter of priority. Some have greater trust in Christian revelation, and others in human reason. If you don't think that the scientific community has a tendency to "commence with a bias, and selectively fit in only that which supports it, and reject anything that does not", I think you're naive. Scientists are not perfect Socratic angels that live in a constant state of doubt about their assumptions; they are mostly, like humanity in general, petty technicians willing to go along to get paid and maintain status.

QuoteFor good or for ill, it's been a package deal.  I hate cell phones.

Maybe culturally but not philosophically, i.e. technological advancement does not rely absolutely or philosophically on cosmological materialism, but a society that does accept cosmological materialism for its basis may indeed take an uncommon interest in technological advancement.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Miriam_M

Quote from: John Lamb on August 01, 2018, 03:40:19 PM

One school accepts whatever the Church teaches and is skeptical about what human science teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept a lot of the discoveries of human science, just not those which compromise Christian dogma.

The other school accepts whatever human science teaches and is skeptical about what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept many of the Church's teaching, just not those which compromise the dogmas of the scientific establishment.

That basically sums it up, yes.

QuoteScientists are not perfect Socratic angels that live in a constant state of doubt about their assumptions; they are mostly, like humanity in general, petty technicians willing to go along to get paid and maintain status.

I don't know about "petty," but I agree that the intellectual apparatus of a self-declared scientist is not categorically superior to that of a theist who is well-educated both in the secular sphere and in the religious sphere.  You see, the real religion of the self-proclaimed scientist is that his own intellect is objectively superior by virtue of its elimination of all that is unseen, and it is this very biased intellect which he worships, while mocking the biases of believers.


Mono no aware

Quote from: John Lamb on August 01, 2018, 03:40:19 PMOne school accepts whatever the Church teaches and is skeptical about what human science teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept a lot of the discoveries of human science, just not those which compromise Christian dogma.

The other school accepts whatever human science teaches and is skeptical about what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they may accept many of the Church's teaching, just not those which compromise the dogmas of the scientific establishment.

It's a matter of priority. Some have greater trust in Christian revelation, and others in human reason. If you don't think that the scientific community has a tendency to "commence with a bias, and selectively fit in only that which supports it, and reject anything that does not", I think you're naive. Scientists are not perfect Socratic angels that live in a constant state of doubt about their assumptions; they are mostly, like humanity in general, petty technicians willing to go along to get paid and maintain status.

Six and one half a dozen the other?  I don't doubt that scientists are prone to human biases like anyone else.  I am saying the scientific method is the only corrective I know of to bias.  If geneticists, including Francis Collins, are "going along to get paid" and falsifying the DNA evidence that shows humans have a 95-97% DNA overlap with chimps, then I would be interested to see a third-party comparison of the two.  If the other great apes do not actually have a coccyx (as well as non-coding DNA for growing a tail), then I would like to see the skeletons.  So far I have no sufficient reason to doubt either of these things, and no creationists that I know of are doing independent analyses.

If you believe scientists wouldn't question evolution if sufficient evidence were presented to the contrary, then that's something you're imputing to them, not what they've said.  "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" is commonly accepted as the kind of evidence that would refute it.  What is the corrective for religious bias?  There isn't one that I know of.

Maximilian

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AM
I've never seen Expelled,

You should watch it. I think you would enjoy it. Even if you disagree with its premise, it would be time well spent.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AM

but the subtitle, "No Intelligence Allowed," seems to be as juvenile as saying creationists are all backwoods snake-handlers.  I think there are sincere and intelligent people on both sides.

No, you are misunderstanding the import of the subtitle because you haven't watched the movie. Some parts of the move are, perhaps, a bit juvenile, but overall it's remarkably well done, and the subtitle is not implying what you seem to think it does.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AM

Max is more intelligent than I am, and he's a creationist. 

Thank you for your kind compliment.

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AM

I'm moderately intelligent and I've variously held the positions of creationism, theistic evolution, and evolution.  I think it has less to do with intelligence and more to do with bias. 

It's a question of opening your mind. Does one's intellect reach towards supernatural reality, or is it closed into a small, hard shell of materialism?

It's like Plato's cave. Are you going to continue being mesmerized by the shadows on the wall, or are you going to turn around and perceive the real thing?

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AM

if you consider Vatican II, the NOM, St. John Paul II, and the apparent defection of the Church, then it's hard to see how evolution isn't incontrovertible.

The Church never spoke dogmatically on evolution even before VII. The unfortunate reality is that most creationists are protestants. The Church has been remarkably weak on this issue, and not only during the time since JPII.

It's not a question of establishment doctrine, but a question of one's own intellectual attachment to God and to Truth.

Greg

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 03:08:15 PM
I can only speak for myself, but science is no religion of mine.  I don't want to belong to a cult, one of the high priests of which is a bow-tie-wearing creepazoid with cartoons of pan-sexual ice cream orgies.  Who knows, maybe things would've been better without all this science, and the Enlightenment was nothing but the opening of Pandora's box.  But then again, we wouldn't have Spotify, Netflix, or air-conditioning.  We'd have horses instead of cars.  I live in the era in which I was born.

But you can take the principles of medicine and make better pills.  You can take the principles of thermodynamics and make air conditioning systems that are more energy efficient.

My plug in hybrid however never charges itself.  Nor does the air conditioning in the car get more efficient, even slightly.  Nor does a horse turn into a car.
As far as we can observe, and science is about observation and measurement, nothing improves without intelligence acting.  Man didn't evolve to ride horses.  One man rode the first horse, then a series of men copied him and improved the process with saddles and reins and bits for the horses mouth.

We are not asked to believe that there are billions of other galaxies on 'faith'.  The Hubble Telescope collected those elections, made an image and then did it again when asked.

Evolution is more like the 'science' of economics where the experts really don't have a clue about what causes what.

Goldman Sachs don't get rich by understanding what will happen with ths economic inputs.  Fund managers cannot beat the S&P.  They all make money by cheating.  They trade on inside information and front run trades.  They claim to be experts but they are the blind following the blind.

Am I really to believe that one set of humans are clever enough to deduce what happens millions of years ago in a chaotic random biological process but cannot predict the weather or the stock market for 1 week from now?  If life has shown me anything, it is that the "experts" are not expert at all and people are incredibly dishonest and self-serving.  This is just as true for evolutionists as it is for Cardinals.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Xavier

Quote from: GregNo, the first couple are scientific.

Evolution on a grand scale where new species and complex mechanism come about through random mutation is not in any way demonstrable.

It is the equivalent of turning the power on and off on a computer and it writing a program.  That would never happen.  Even in a Billion Billion years. 

Exactly, Greg. Well said.

It seems you believe in something close to Intelligent Design. You may like that Documentary Expelled that Max and John and Michael were talking about. 

1. I recommend those who are interested in seriously studying the issue to buy and read Prof's Denton's classic, now updated, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. And Prof. Denton is British. The irony is sweet. It may well be a Brit who does much to help defeat evolution. Denton believes in a kind of Intelligent Design. Here's a book review from Amazon, "but this is an excellent look from an agnostic/neutral perspective at how the scientific discoveries of the last thirty years (since his first book) have continued to make Darwinism not just less and less scientific, but barely even logical - how even the biological evidence we knew about 30 years ago should have been huge red flags for any thinking person, let alone biologists. Also how the field of evo-devo has been turning against the adaptationist view due to these discoveries.

He presents examples such as the enucleation of red blood cells, feathers, genes, angiosperms, cells themselves, the tetrapod limb, etc. leading to the evolutionary bugbears of the human language and higher mental faculties, as examples of Darwinism's utter explanatory failure. The arguments for such seem to be watertight and are even more damning since these are taxa-defining novelties.

A brief summary of once such example: how did the enucleation of red blood cells ever evolve, taking into account the complexity of the cell structure and the thousands of structural changes needed to move the nucleus out of the cell? What fitness could a quarter-out or half-out cell provide to ensure it was passed on? How did the rest of the organism prepare for this change, since it could not be "tested" until it was fully functional? The other examples are similar and seem to be similar to irreducible complexity - so many things had to change all at once for these features to work." https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/1936599325

2. Max, Dr/Prof. Michael Behe, who first articulated the concept of "irreducible complexity" is a Catholic ID theorist. He once said something like, "My life is complicated enough with questioning evolution." Many ID believers are closet creationists. When more and more Catholics become confident in questioning evolution/defending special creation, I'm sure the tide will turn. Pope Pius IX approved a canon rejecting evolution shortly after Darwin's thesis. Pope Pius XII rejected polygenism and insisted on original sin while permitting theistic evolution for now, with the stipulation that all who work in the sacred and natural sciences should be ready to submit to the judgment of the Church. The Church will one day say evolution is false and certainly never happened. Until then, it's up to creation scientists to develop the most forceful demonstrations of the falsehood of evolution.

American creation scientists, generally speaking, have been stronger than most in the rest of the English-speaking world, with some admirable exceptions. If Christians hope for Christianity to triumph in Britain again in time for the Age of Mary to come, we must continue to develop ever-stronger scientific arguments against evolution. The time for "neutrality" is long past.

Rev. Williams says well, "we can not release you because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or embarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far reaching, and so baneful in its effects."

And he makes another simple argument for why no scientist in general, and believer in God in particular, should believe God is so weak as to need monkeys to give birth to men. This is similar to what Pope Pius XII said, that God's ever-present creative power is necessary for the existence of the soul.

Quote"Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still more emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul, or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of evolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not surprised. If they could show the evolution of the human body probable or even possible, they can never account for the origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God. We can not release evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the faculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of complete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they are positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the hand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an explanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of man. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis must bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to propose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is, soul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.

How do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can not be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as the materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of evolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not transmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of the child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parents suffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before it can grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created the souls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at the beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogy teaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If evolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none now. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour ...

Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "I am a living being." What animals are conscious of personality? Any of our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality--the trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so when did personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it spontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question, it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no sense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul."
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Mono no aware

Quote from: Greg on August 01, 2018, 11:29:50 PMMy plug in hybrid however never charges itself.  Nor does the air conditioning in the car get more efficient, even slightly.  Nor does a horse turn into a car.
As far as we can observe, and science is about observation and measurement, nothing improves without intelligence acting.  Man didn't evolve to ride horses.  One man rode the first horse, then a series of men copied him and improved the process with saddles and reins and bits for the horses mouth.

I would disagree with the statement, "nothing improves without intelligence acting."  All physical traits are (empirically) genetic, so any physical improvement in an organism can be accounted for in the genes.  I've always found Darwin's finches a good explanation of this.  They're finches from the Latin American mainland that colonized the Galapagos and evolved to adapt to their new environment, to an extent that they became separate species.  If a group of finches ends up in an area where the available food is nuts, then a finch with the toughest and strongest beak to crush nuts will have more success at getting the food, and will naturally have more sexual success than his peers with slightly weaker beaks.  He'll pass his genes into the next generation while some of his competitors won't.  Over time, the birds with tougher beaks will predominate, as the same competition will be repeated in every generation. 

There's no intelligence necessary in this kind of improvement: it's just a genetic lottery.  For the finches who landed on another island where the available food was bugs, it was a finch whose beak was slightly longer and more slender, and could get into the crevasses between the rocks to extract the bugs.  Why would we have to assume that an intelligent designer somehow spliced the right genes in order for those finches to survive?  We can already see genetic variations within species; it stands to reason that certain variations could adapt better than others to certain environmental pressures.  You're right that everyone on the Titanic was at the same risk of drowning in the North Atlantic because humans don't have blubber.  Of course.  But that's a situation that kills everyone regardless; the question should be about a situation where a few have a genetic advantage to fare better in a trial better than the rest.  If the trial is an environmental constant, then the genes for that trait will proliferate.

The question I have for intelligent design proponents is, if the process of traits being passed through genes is actually the invisible hand of God splicing in the right genes for the right environment, then how do we account for the multiplicity of genetic changes that aren't advantageous at all, and are purely freakish and cruel?  It makes more sense that nature is random and uncaring.  Only an unintelligent designer would work in the manner genetics does.  Consider the poignant poem of Joseph Merrick, the so-called "Elephant Man":

'Tis true my form is something odd,
But blaming me is blaming God;
Could I create myself anew
I would not fail in pleasing you
.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Maximilian on August 01, 2018, 09:19:02 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 01, 2018, 10:09:03 AMif you consider Vatican II, the NOM, St. John Paul II, and the apparent defection of the Church, then it's hard to see how evolution isn't incontrovertible.

The Church never spoke dogmatically on evolution even before VII. The unfortunate reality is that most creationists are protestants. The Church has been remarkably weak on this issue, and not only during the time since JPII.

It's not a question of establishment doctrine, but a question of one's own intellectual attachment to God and to Truth.

I worded that part clumsily.  I agree with you that the Catholic Church has been middling in her response to evolution.  What I meant was that, to the extent that the Catholic Church herself has, over the last fifty years, presented a challenge to her own claim of being indefectible, it makes it that much more difficult to accept her claims on other truths, such as the inerrancy of scripture (and, in particular, the creation account).

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 02, 2018, 11:50:38 AMThe question I have for intelligent design proponents is, if the process of traits being passed through genes is actually the invisible hand of God splicing in the right genes for the right environment, then how do we account for the multiplicity of genetic changes that aren't advantageous at all, and are purely freakish and cruel?

Original sin.

And there's no such thing as cruelty in an atheistic universe. Matter doesn't produce moral categories.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Greg

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 02, 2018, 11:50:38 AM

There's no intelligence necessary in this kind of improvement: it's just a genetic lottery.

That is not an improvement.  It is an adaptation to the environment.  The beak didnt improve.  The weak beaked finches died out.

The strong beaks already existed and managed to breed with other strong beaks. 

Similarly, African Americans are taller, fitter and faster than Africans; because the weak ones didn't survive slavery.  But they are simply the genetic off spring of people with already improve genes or physical traits which caused them to survive more often.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on August 02, 2018, 05:11:14 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 02, 2018, 11:50:38 AMThe question I have for intelligent design proponents is, if the process of traits being passed through genes is actually the invisible hand of God splicing in the right genes for the right environment, then how do we account for the multiplicity of genetic changes that aren't advantageous at all, and are purely freakish and cruel?

Original sin.

And there's no such thing as cruelty in an atheistic universe. Matter doesn't produce moral categories.

Why is the punishment for original sin doled out so indiscriminately, then?  Only in a scheme where there's reincarnation can we surmise that Joseph Merrick was a child rapist in a former life, and was genetically cursed in a later one.  Otherwise he is no more or less blameless than you or I.  I think our differences here are theological, not scientific.

What does produce moral categories, if God cannot be held to any moral standard?