A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Jeremy Narby, Ph.D. (Stanford University, anthropology, and a staunch evolutionist) says in this book (which I am currently reading):Context: Defending his claimed status as an agnostic and having just blasted ID. A few off topic sentences later, on the next page (Narby is narrating a travelogue as he goes). And another Stanford Ph.D., Dr. Gene Scott (degree in Philosophy and Religion and a Ph.D. minor in psychology)"It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion." Dr. Scott's quote was made in a context against the absurdity of claiming prolong agnostic status.Narby is a full-blooded evolutionist attempting to assert that he has not made up his mind about God or that the same is unknowable. In either case the Christian majority proves him wrong - God is knowable. Narby slams the main assertion of evolution (chance) but he is an evolutionist = stereotypical patron of Scientism. Narby has formed an opinion, he has contradicted himself and he is confused.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : Add full Narby quote

Your posts in this thread are spot on and I have learned much.The "Darwinian atheist generated myth" is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit triggered by the new starting assumption adopted by the scientific community between the years 1859 and 1874. That assumption said God was not responsible for the production of nature. The penalty causes persons to believe something so ridiculous (Darwinism) for denying Him Creator recognition.Ray Martinez

Actually, I did know this about you Prof. Davison which makes your evidence and arguments all the more objective.Einstein believed in "Spinoza's god". Spinoza believed nature itself had a mind, and of course who do you think spoke for this mute "mind" ? Darwinists are the same today; the prophets of nature stealing the patent from God.Ray Martinez

I would very much like to see a response from you concerning the above ?Ray

I am hoping to ride the coattails of Randman and ask another good question.We know in the First edition of Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin it contained one example of macro-speciation: whales morphing into bears. The example was quickly yanked from the second and all later editions by Darwin.We know Darwin was a prolific plant and pigeon breeder. He also had a vast network of worldwide breeder contacts. Based on these two facts we deduce Darwin suspected that there was a natural barrier (genetic homeostasis) that is impassable - that is why he, in fact, yanked the aforementioned example from the Origin.Common ancestry, based solely on parahomologous structures and anatomy assumes and keeps itself alive - all the while miraculously circumventing the barrier which no artificial breeder has ever been able to cross in experimentation. Yet Darwinists assert it happens behind our backs in the wild ?Prof. Davison could you address genetic homeostasis the way I have defined it here ?Thanks,Ray Martinez

Prof. Davison:I posed a question here:http://EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis -->EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary HypothesisI am hoping the lack of a response was an unintentional oversight. Could you please address my question ? If not, then thanks anyway.Ray Martinez

Then what mechanism drives evolutionary change ?What is the PEH mechanism and how does it cross the barrier (genetic homeostasis) ?I could produce a quote from Ernst Mayr (1963) saying genetic homestasis is a fact but everything he wrote afterwards denies and evades. He truly regretted ever saying it.Darwinists assert ONLY data from experimentation determines scientific facts, yet they ignore wholesale over 200 years of experimentation that failed to cross the barrier. One wonders what experimentation that they base a crossable barrier on, except the standard "how else did we get here ?" atheistic philosophic nonsense.Ray

Right. There are no experiments. Then what is macroevolution based upon ? I thought only experimentation determines scientific facts ?Please do not be offended. You are an anonymous member of the neo-Darwinian scientific establishment, well known and respected for your vast scientific knowledge. While you undoubtedly have some expertise in the history of naturalistic evolutionary theory, you, for the most part, are not a historian.We (historians) know that Darwin had contact with a vast network of artificial animal and plant breeders worldwide. This is a basic fact of evolutionary history. Darwin himself bred pigeons and conducted experiments on plants his whole life. Prior to Darwin there is at least 100 years of artificial plant and animal breeding experiments. These experiments AND Darwin's AND every experiment of these kinds AFTER Darwin have one common denominator: no one has ever breached the natural genetic barrier. Naturally breeding populations of any size, whether in the wild or in captivity (including artificial experimentation) have never even once successfully impregnated or crossed this natural barrier. There are no blue roses, fruit flies remain mutant fruit flies.Can you cite any experiments proving the fact of macroevolution (barrier breach) ?If not why is macroevolution a fact ?What justifies the fact of speciation (synonym of macroevolution) ?Edit: Homology ? Where is reductionist genetic barrier breach data (other line of supporting evidence) which justifies homologous conclusions ? [end last two edits]I will tell you. The only thing you can do is confuse the meaning of these words as is seen in your next comment: Cite the experimental artificial breeding data justifying speciation or you have lost the debate ?I predict your answer will, in a roundabout way, say it must happen in the wild behind our backs....how else did we get here ? (evolution-must-of-did-it) How did evolution do it ? Where is the vast experimental data showing the revolving door of the genetic code ? Even by your own science we know once all of the variations have been selected there are no more. Is it poof time ? Where is the poof data to justify the conclusion ?We are told by Darwinists that only experimentation determines scientific facts. Cite the experiments to justify barrier breach. For over 200 years NO ONE has ever crossed that barrier.WK: How did the human female reproductive scent mechanism evolve step by step ? Or was it an antonymic punctuational event ? How come no human female has ever been impregnated by a non-human ? Imagine that....genus homo the product of a Goldshmidt saltation ? LOL ! So much for numerous successive slight modifications.RayEdited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : add contentEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : spelling

This is cheap and dishonest, as if I am arguing against my own evidence. You can understand and follow complicated scientific arguments in journals and deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as your worldview needs them to be, but now you evade by dishonesty the irrefutable fact that no person has ever crossed the barrier - all experimentation failed for 200 years. I am greatly comforted that you employed this tactic = inability to refute.I will leave you alone = the real reason Darwinists do this when they have no answer.Ray

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.

But none of your flimsy quotes support this agnostic claim. Previously, I said Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and ReligionSource for the Spinoza Reference Spinoza believed nature possessed a mind - he was a lunatic in this regard. Why neither you or Einstein can connect the brilliance of nature with an invisible Designer is easily explained by the dogged desire not to come under His authority - as would obligate anyone who truly did. In other words, you want to remain and be the boss = the original sin of Lucifer that God would not forgive him of (evidence of his invisible presence). We all are guilty of this natural evil desire. Christianity delivers one from its hold.The links on Einstein reveal a person with ordinary atheist beliefs. An agnostic is a person who is attempting to hide his atheism. The term was coined by one of the most famous atheists of all time - T.H. Huxley.If you define agnostic as "don't know" then how is it that most of these persons speak quite authoritatively on the very subject that they are not supposed to know ? This is rhetorical. Or if your definition is "unable to know" this still leaves this person exposed as an atheist since most of this type hold beliefs that atheists are known to hold.No educated person can possibly claim prolong (genuine don't know) agnostic status since it is "impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion." I responded to YOUR post content here: I did address the subject that YOU initiated. This renders your first blue box comment to be wholly inaccurate and out of order. How is responding to what you wrote "divisive" or not "contributing" ? 2nd Time:

​

I ask again in reference to your blue box quote above: Who or what determines or prescribes your evolutionary hypothesis ?Atheists have to say chance, which you have righfully lambasted. We know you assert all processes were determined, by what or whom ? You have no grudge but then, you list in the next breath how Godfather Dembski has, by proxy, persecuted you. I just want to know WHY Dembski had you banned ? These are not the words of a man holding a grudge ?I am sorry, those credentials qualify Dembski as a scientist - not a matter of opinion. Anyone who says otherwise must treat recognized evolutionary authorities, who have their degree in philosophy the same way.Professor Davison:If you don't want to discuss things with me just say so or ignore my posts.Ray Martinez

This is not true since you initiated that you did want to discuss these things here: You can certainly change your mind but you cannot deny that YOU initiated what I responded to. This is now the third time I ask the same question about your PEH:Who or what determines or perscribes your theory ?You have voluminously invoked Einstein's determinacy. The same corresponds with teleological principles. Einstein was an atheist who, like Spinoza, believed nature possessed a mind. An inantimate non-sentient expanse of physical reality possessed a mind ? We know these concepts come straight out of ancient Greece where the daughter of Zeus ("Dike" pronounced "deekay" root of all English words: "righteousness" and "justification" ) enforced his will. Since neither oracle could speak powerful persons (Spinoza, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Dawkins, Quetzal, Davison) spoke for them. I did no such thing and I produced two very reputable links to support my claims. You have showered insults at the drop of a hat - very unbecoming behavior for a man of your professional stature. You are the one acting like a Fundamentalist who has had his faith profaned.You evade everything in others posts that require you to do some work and never do you quote your opponent, which tells me you are simply in love with yourself and like hearing yourself speak. I urge you to cease with the unprovoked insults as it betrays an inability to refute.Dr. Gene Scott: "Morons have no inferiority complexes....intelligent persons do....Einstein was so conscious of his inferiorities that he hated to be seen in public."Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : more spelling

I know.Anyone can play this act in order to evade unpleasant questions and issues. I am surely not impressed or intimidated.Professor Davison: What or who determines or perscribes your theory ?You have wrecked atheist ideology (chance) parading as scientific fact. Darwinism is true by philosophic definition (only naturalistic conclusions are eligible to be scientific fact regardless if its true or not). Thats the answer I got in my thread when I asked them why is the process blind...."It is science" said the parrots. If the process had sight then that ruins their goal of eliminating God. Instead, their process is blind and guess what ? They own the exclusive right to own and operate all Darwinian seeing eye dog franchises. Darwinian minds guide the process...."natural selection-did-it" is the one answer thats fits all questions and problems. They have replaced God with themselves = evidence of Biblical claim that the original sin of Lucifer and his goal of enticing us to do the same is true and is having great success.Now you come along and give the process purpose but deny God. You are now replacing the Darwinists with yourself.Prof. Davison is God.Meet the new boss same as the old boss.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : doesn't really matter Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

I asked you what or who determines or perscribes your theory and on the 3rd attempt you finally answered: Prof. Davison: I have never denied GodHowever, in this thread it appears there MAY be a contradiction....can you please explain ? All of the material below can be confirmed in this link: Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with tile consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature."” Letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797 My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215 I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.” Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
Einstein's Religion My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955 I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.The SoulIn their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.News Wire » Internet Infidels About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet”In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123. We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.Spinoza and Einstein It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem ” the most important of all human problems.Spinoza and EinsteinEinstein held stereotypical atheistic beliefs. He, like Spinoza believed the universe and nature had a mind and that was his God. In other words, your idol was a nut.Ray Martinez

What or who determines or perscribes your theory ?If God is endorsed what is your source for information about Him or It ?These are basic questions of life that everyone wonders what others believe and why they believe it.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : who cares