A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I see there have been no responses to my four challenges.Let me now concentrate on the Creationist aspect of EvC. It should be obvious that I am very definitely a creationist but not of the sectarian variety. I see no evidence for a living or personal God anywhere in the present world and so I have hesitated to postulate such an existence. Einstein felt the same way:"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of of religion and sience lies in the concept of a personal God."and:"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."Neither Einstein nor I would ever deny the possibility of such a God because that is not possible. The important point is that the scientist must never postulate anything not absolutely necessary to support his conclusions. What is absolutely essential to any hypothesis for the great mystery of evolution is that one or more intelligences must have once existed that are far beyond our feeble comprehension to presently, and perhaps, ever understand. That is all that I am prepared to defend. That is also what has served to alienate me from the Creationist element which, especially in this country, is obviously dominated by the Fundamentalist Christian Protestant leadership in the persons of such widely published luminaries as William Dembski and Phillip Johnson, neither of whom can be considered to be a scientist by the wildest stretch of the imagination.This has led to the very unfortunate polarization which still dominates the evolutionary scenario. Since I have rejected both camps it should surprise no one that I have been banned from discussion at not only those forums dominated by traditional Darwinism but by the major forum representing the other camp, Uncommon Descent. That is why I am offering my perspective here and now before I am once again banned from further opportunity here as at so many other internet forums. I am very grateful to EvC for granting me this rare opportunty to express my convictions.Once again from Einstein, not only a great scientist but an equally great student of human nature:"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."and, speaking, like myself, as a convinced determinist:"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."I am convinced that we are all victims of our respective fates which, if I may use the word, was "prescribed" long ago. Some of us have been luckier than others. I hope this will clarify my own firm position with respect to the great mystery of organic evolution.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Arguments for a personal God are more theological or subjective, but I think it's not necessary to exclude belief or call it naive in a personal God, and think Einstein was somewhat naive in making that statement.The simple fact is science cannot determine a lot of things. Science cannot determine whom you love and decide to marry. Perhaps science can help pick a better mate, and maybe we could one day have arranged marriages based on genetics or some such Gattica-type thing, but really much of life's decisions must be navigated with little help from science. You see a business deal and it looks great, but you have a bad feeling or bad hunch something is wrong......well, you better go with your gut feeling, and not your scientific analysis on that one. That's one of the things life teaches us.So it's naive to say that belief in a personal God is naive because it presumes that we should derive our beleifs and actions from scientific inquiry and analysis, and scientific theories and views are way too fleeting for that.

I think it amusing that the greatest mind of all time should be so easily dismissed.. I also believe that nothing is beyond the realm of out potential knowledge and that includes the existence or non-existence of a personal God. I am 99% certain that no such entity ever existed or ever will. You see I am not a muddle-headed relativist. They don't have any fixed beliefs. I sincerely believe in undeniable, crystalline, absolute truth. That is the goal of science."Ascertainable truth is partial, piecemeal, uncertain and difficult."
Bertrand Russellbut ascertainable neverthless."Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

It's quite interesting that you proclaim yourself to be a determinist in the context of creation vs evolution, because I think indeterminacy vs determinacy is the underlying problem in creation vs evolution.That things may act freely is not an established fact in science. In the billions of scientific texts there is not a single case which stands out as proof of any free behaviour. Like indeterminacy is unproven, so is anything spiritual unproven within science. The two denials are related in my opinion.It is actually hardly avoidable to say everything is causally bound, including people, when you aren't capable of describing things in terms of acting freely, in the same way all of science isn't capable of describing free behaviour. So I am not impressed with your personal awareness of causality in human behaviour, unless you can also describe human behaviour in terms of acting freely, with choices made in heart and soul, and God who can freely judge over the choices people make.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

You think Einstein was the greatest mind of all time. Personally, I think Tesla's mind was much greater and yet I am not going to adopt all of his beliefs outside of the realm of science.Plus, Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics. He actually started out right on it, to his credit, but backed off because it didn't fit with his ideas on how things must be.Regardless, yea, I think the only reason one would say belief in a personal God is naive is that they would think that science should tell them what to believe in certain areas and since science cannot do that, they would be skeptical. Imo, that is frankly a very dumb move, whether the one doing it is brilliant or not. Science is limited by technology and cannot be relied on to formulate most beliefs (such as right and wrong, beliefs about God, whom to marry, what to devote one's life to, etc, etc,....).

I didn't come here to discuss metaphysical matters. I came to defend a new hypothesis for organic evolution. My digression was simply to establish my position and fill an obvious gap in the discussion. I am not a philosopher and neither was Einstein. I have no intention of abandoning the reasons I responded to the invitation to appear here at "showcase." I hope you understand.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

We have very little choice about the very things you mention as has been made very clear by the studies on separated identical twins. We are all victims of our "prescribed" fates in complete accord with the PEH. Einstein lived and died a strict determinist and so will I. Personally I regard "free will" as without foundation. Sorry about that.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

I am not sure how determinism in your view rules out a personal God, and actually think there is a paradox involved here, but that gets us into theology. But I will add this. Are we as puppets on a string still able to make free choices? I suppose that might depend on the relationship between the the puppet and the one holding the strings.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Well maybe if you were actually capable of describing any free behaviour scientifically, you would understand your own theory of the prescribed evolution hypothesis better.Saying evolution is proscribed is the opposite of saying evolution is free. So one possible falsification of your theory would be if it were found that evolution is free.But I don't think you are capable of describing any free behaviour scientifically in the first place.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

There is an analytic position in math (Cantor's) that permits continuous motion in a discontinuous space. I am sorry that you wanted a reply sooner than I am able. The appearence of a disjunction between ontogeny and phylogeny in my posts may only be due to a yet undetermined instruction (in an organon, metaphysically)in the proportionment FROM space to synthetic statements of ontogeny and/or phylogeny. Bertrand Russell insisted as a thesis even after the fact, that math and logic were identical. That is the cause, not my rather hard or hardly working, writings, of the your notice of temporality here, I would say.I will be putting a post together on how, by logic and math NOT being identical, that a further issue as to the nature of any continuum, that holds ontogeny and phylogeny in the same point sets are(can be) bound by the form of a circle (possibly of chromosomes (per gene (sic?)(by subset)(I mentioned the first time with you))where algebra is different than geometry but I can not post at the rate you seem to insist on, givin my work schedule. It is not or never too late when it is a good idea (such as creative (infinte)form-making).

I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

I never claimed that a personal God is ruled out. All I claimed is that I see no evidence for one. I don't think any one else does either but a lot of people think they do. In any event it has nothing to do with the PEH so why bring it up again?

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

BradI honestly cannot fathom your meaning and I am not trying to be smart. I am sorry.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Who determines and perscribes your hypothesis then ?We logically conclude that the appearance of design and organized complexity in the biological world corresponds to the mind and power of an invisible Designer.The context of the Darwinian paradigm was an attempt to explain the undisputed appearance of design in reality minus the assistance of a Divine Creator. If atheist-Darwinism is false then Paleyean design remains true.We know bats possess SONAR....and electric fish....and mimicry cry invisible Designer by any objective criteria. How did bat sonar become reality step by step and how did the flying creature secure prey in the dark until evolution installed the apparatus ?God is deduced by visible creation as none of the biological realities mentioned above could have evolved step by atheist step. Einstein was an atheist like Spinoza who believed nature itself possessed a mind. And who do you think spoke for this mind that had no ability to speak ?Darwinists are the same today. They deify nature then speak for it. In 1863 Lyell (The Antiquity of Man) chastised Darwin for deifying nature and natural selection. Darwin replied by saying that Lyell misunderstood his metaphor. Darwin wants it both ways: a stupid process where he is its Prophet = all Darwinists today do the same.You have used your profound intellect to expose the silly nonsense of the atheist origins myth but refuse to conclude logically: nature is the product of an unseen Mind. I think you are afraid of being labelled a god-damn Fundamentalist. I'm not - they are atheist Darwinism's evil twin, both have scared intelligent people away from God. Neither Dembski or Johnson are Fundies. We know by your own admissions that you have a grudge against Dembski but, as far as I know, you have never divulged why.Dembski is a premier scientist with impeccable credentials - not a matter of opinion. Johnson doesn't claim to be a scientist. We know his degrees are in Law. Johnson retains his position in the Creation-Evolution debate because of his recognized expertise, much like Michael Ruse.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : editEdited by Herepton, : both edits minor content additionsEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Just about everything you have said is dead wrong.Einstein was never an atheist and described himself as an agnostic.Try these on for size."I want to know how God created the world."
The New Quotable Einstein, page 194and"I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist. The problem is too vast for our limited minds."
ibid, page 196You obviously know nothing of what you are talking about. Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with my presence here and the subject of this "showcase" thread. I recommend that if you are unable to address the subject at hand that you stay out of the discussion as you contibute nothing to it with your obviously divisive tactics. Neither will anyone else who insists on similar ploys.I have no grudge against Dembski. Dembski has banned me from Uncommon Descent, or rather he got his sycophantic servant DaveScot to do it for him. I treat all those who have banned a published scientist like myself from particiption in their closed union shops with equal contempt.I express my contempt for them by transposing their first and last names as follows. Wesley Elsberry is now Esley Welsberry, P.Z. Meyers, M.Z. Peyers or sometimes M.P. Zeyers, Scott L. Page is now Pott L. Scage and William Dembski now Dilliam Wembski. Got that? Write that down. By the way, Wembski's hand picked blog czar and one man goon squad has become Spravid Dinger. I'll let you figure that one out. His counterpart, Alan Fox over at Panda's Thumb, is now and forever Falan Ox.Furthermore Wembski is not a scientist by the wildest stretch of the imagination. He is a theologian and has a Ph.D. in theology to prove it and a Ph.D in mathemetics with very shaky credentials. Anyone who thinks Intelligent Design needs to be proven mathematically can hardly be considered a scientist. It is obvious to any objective mind. As for his fundametalism, I will remind you that he is now teaching at a Baptist seminary and has commented favorably on the Bible Codes! How fundamentalist can one be? Jillip Phonson is a lawyer and, as near as I can tell, he doesn't believe in evolution in any form. Wembski recently edited and contributed to a Festschrift in his honor!By the way, you don't have to ban me to have your name scrambled. There are several ways to earn my contempt. I can't do much with only one name and that one probably an alias.It's hard to believe isn't it?

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."