On Thursday, the state-directed media went ballistic when Scott Walker was asked his opinion of evolution. Unlike the majority of Americans and the entire liberal media complex, Scott Walker does not consider himself an expert on scientific problems he knows almost nothing about.
The man who first described Quantum Physics, made this observation after a lifetime of scientific study.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Father of Quantum Physics
Now, the integrity of state-directed journalists is being called into question by even the most humble members of society, and the disparity of concern for the scientific opinions of a successful governor or the lack of concern over the illustrated ignorance of American and world history by a failing Commander-in-Chief is comical. While scientific research in the White House has been limited, a knowledge of American History is considered essential. Thus the ludicrous insinuations of state-directed media becomes patently obvious, when a propaganda writer asks:
“Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?”
Walker answered that he would punt on the issue, but threw in this measure of sanity, like a bone to the government’s panting whores posing as journalists:
“That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”
Our president would never pass up an opportunity to offer sage advice on scientific and philosophical questions, areas he seems to have more of a deficit in than the average erudite citizen, but a lack of expertise has never prevented him from weighing in on complex subjects, with a charming delivery and a complete lack of substance. However, after the last seven years of watching this stumbling fool being coddled by media, the tables have forever turned. The new media will not be playing the games of the non-objective state-directed media and the new objective media is winning over a public that has lost faith in traditional media; especially, since the efforts to protect the image of this president from public scrutiny and derision were so painfully obvious.
Fools may continue to quote dubious experts on scientific issues that have become political issues, but the informed public has grown wary of listening to useful idiots repeating meaningless talking points. In fact, the continuous hammering of ignorance over substance has become counter productive to the thinking citizens; so let the Left play the games of fools, we will rely on facts and science from experts, and make our own assessments. 
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
Seems to me that the left is just as fanatical about branding as a heretic anyone who doesn’t accept their dogma. Personally, I don’t see a conflict between religion and evolution.
Governor Walker is going to be hounded with gotcha questions like all the GOP candidates. He seems to be handling them ok so far.
In the movie Expelled, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, a very prominent atheist, evolutionary biologist, the question, “What do you think is the possibility that . . . intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?”
Dawkins’s reply:
Well, OOPS!
So he makes it ”turtles all the way down.”
In other words, God made life SOMEWHERE even if it wasn’t here!
And this is the most prominent atheistic evolution pusher on this planet at this time.
In Darwin’s Doubt, Steven C. Meyer makes a secular argument that complex systems don’t ever occur in Nature without some intelligence behind them.
He concludes that evolution could explain some of what we see but a better explanation is found in intelligent design theory.
He focuses on the Pre-Cambian era where all of the branches of ”the tree” show up simultaneously.
The book’s title relates to Darwin’s OWN doubt about his theory, as he expressed it at the time in his own writings.
Gov. Walker must turn this question back on the questioner.
When YOU say ”evolution,” what EXACTLY do YOU mean?
This, because we see that ”evolution” means vastly different things to different people.
After DNA was discovered Darwin should have been eventually relegated to a trash heap of history.
That he has not tells me that ”global warming” will be with us forever, too.
Why let facts get in the way of a useful theory to oppress people?
Evolution isn’t really in question. Species evolve. We see it happening before our eyes. The real question is the origin of life. Evolution does not answer the question of the origin of life. If life spontaneously arose from the primordial soup, why doesn’t it happen all the time so we can observe it? There is a quantum leap between organic molecules and living creatures. Anyone who says they know what that quantum leap is, is lying.
@JoeThePimpernel:
Maybe this kickoff is rare… People haven’t been looking long enough to see it happen. If the odds of something happening are a 100 billion to 1, it’s pretty rare. On the other hand if you try it 100 billion times, the odds improve. There’s something like 100 billion stars (insert Carl Sagan voice here) in the galaxy.
Bravo Skook! And good for Gov. Walker… about time someone set these smug NPR types back on topic; they have become masters of distraction. I am hopeful the wisdom you give the informed public credit for overcomes the pervading ignorance displayed by the liberal media who will learn all the more dilligently the importance of vetting their chauffeurs in a more thorough manner. Pity it has taken such a long time but one hopes the ship is finally slowly turning away from the ragged rocky shoal.
There’s a rich irony here.
Obama has done everything he can to force businesses to hire those who are under-educated even those who are felons. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/equality-convicts_769629.html
He cares not that they would need minders to keep an eye on them as they case their workplace for theft later.
Here is a non-degreed person who has risen to the top in employment in state government and has proven to be trustworthy.
So, naturally there are Obama-media-lapdogs looking to tear him apart.
I wonder if they will investigate all the upticks in internal thefts as a result of Obama’s “hire the stupid” campaign?
The Bible says that there were unicorns in two places
The Bible says that there is a God
I have had this debate with my cousin, an athiest PhD biologist. The irony is that though he admits there is no fossil record that demonstrates one species evolving into another species – nor any other type of evidence that shows such an event – he begrugingly admits that he accepts “on faith” that such an event happened because different species exist. Yet he refuses to accept that his faith- ased belief is the same as accepting on faith the existence of a supernatural creator. He finds solace in the rationalization that evidence of transpecies evolution just hasn’t been discovered yet.
Certainly, there is plenty of evidence of evolution within a particular species, classified as ‘microevolution’ by intelligent design proponents. But the complex, delicate interaction of DNA gyrase, DNA, and ribosomes in the replication of genetic material is the ultimate biological example of “which came first? The chicken or the egg?” Science has never found examples of DNA being able to replicate by itself, and both DNA gyrase (the enzymatic protein which unspools DNA so it can be read/replicated) and ribosomes (the microbiologic protein machine that reads and builds new DNA and RNA strands) is encoded and controlled by DNA. The temperatures that would be required for such biochemical reactions to occur without catalyzing enzymes are so high that the DNA strands and proteins would denature, thus becoming nonfunctional as they degraded. And that is at the relatively simple level of microbiology – paling in comparison to the much more complex interactions at the organ and organism level of biology.
Dawkins position that some other species seeded Earth dodges the question of how this other species came into existence. The flummoxed facial expressions of evolutionary biologists when you bring up these points is amusing, as they flounder around with variations of “But evolution is SCIENCE, while religion is just superstitious nonsense that only stupid people believe…”
You know…stupid people like Isaac Newton, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein….
The problem with your entire thesis is the supposition that it’s entirely reasonable for a person to use a lack of expertise in science as an excuse for holding an educated opinion contrary to settled science . Science also says relatively banal things like Advil can help alleviate back pain. Does Scott Walker need to understand the detailed science behind Ibuprofen to have an opinion as to whether it works? Maybe god created the dinosaur bones to fool nonbelievers and maybe Advil is a placebo and every time you take it, it’s really God making your back feel better. If Scott Walker can’t opine on evolution, i have no idea what he thinks about the efficacy of Advil, or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. Can Scott Walker explain how he knows the Earth revolves around the Sun (or vice versa)?
Hey, I believe in ibuprofen! Especially when knocked back with a shot of whisky, and if that isn’t an old Southern remedy it should be 🙂
Skook, THANK YOU for that Max Planck quote! It sums up how I try to talk to people who need this kind of explanation. I throw in that the laws of physics that must exist for the universe to exist are that mind, and that it underpins reality.
But what would I know? I didn’t finish college, either.
@Tom:
How does Scott Walker’s opinion on Advil affect whether or not YOU choose to use it?
OTOH, those who consider evolution “settled science”, then use that position to brand all dissenters as fundamentally ignorant, does affect my life as both an engineer who depends upon sound science to make my living, and as a believer – in faith, clearly stated – in Young Earth creationism.
If only those whose faith in extrapolating the fossil record through gross assumptions of time-invariance would declare theirs as clearly … and adhere to the same analytic principle as Scott Walker: Callahan’s Principle of Leadership.
A man’s got to know his limitations.
Now, let me tell you what I observe … with over 31 years of experience in harnessing physical and chemical processes to serve humanity, I observe that, left to themselves, these processes move matter to the low-energy states of either stasis or chaos … to diamonds, or dust, if you will.
In the absence of intelligent intervention, I have yet to see these physical processes move matter to any state of ordered dynamism that approaches that of sustainable, reproducible life … unless these processes are ALREADY part of a living organism.
The way I see it, the probability that natural processes organized matter into sustainable life forms in the absence of intelligent intervention makes Powerball tickets look as secure as gold as an investment.
OTOH, my view that the world is “young” is based purely upon the theology I ascribe to, and I will freely admit that my position there is based on faith.
I just ask that people admit where their position is based upon blind faith, instead of confirmed observation … “consensus’ is not conclusive proof.
@John: In another age, you would have been part of the KKK…
…because you’re a bigot.
big*ot:
noun
“a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”
@Tom: You’re using partisan, bigoted logic to dodge reason.
In Post #9, Pete talks about this. Read it again.
Just because you use bias language like “settled” doesn’t mean you get to step out of science and make the world over in what is convenient for you to believe.
In short, you’re as ignorant as a fundamentalist Christian: not using science and not educating yourself in reality.
If you want to use the above flawed language on Walker, it’s not for any reason other than being a close-minded, liberal cheer-leader. You’re using bigotry to force your preference on others, rather than moving toward a solution.
The big game with the left is convincing others the right believes the earth is flat. Walker knows how the Earth goes around the sun. Evolution is a subject that “evolves” daily, and asking it is merely a way of denigrating a good candidate. It’s absolutely shameful how far the left has fallen in their “any means necessary” war of misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies.
If you don’t like Walker, fine. But don’t use a flimsy rhetorical technique (Walker wouldn’t talk about evolution…so he believes the earth is flat!!). It only makes you look like an idiot.
@Ritchie The Riveter:
Thank you for your civil response. It’s heartening to see someone willing to respond without the overblown cartoonish hostility.
Let’s dispense with the obvious. The question posed to Walker itself was indeed trollish. Just cut to the chase. From a policy standpoint, political party affiliation is more predictive of policy choice than personal beliefs of this type. i have no idea what Walker thinks – and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I don’t believe being a creationist, in and of itself, means a politician can’t implement sound public policy. So, I agree it was an obvious loyalty test. And he stayed true to his base. It tells me nothing about how he feels about policy. Does it hint at his political leanings on important questions related to science? Well, yes, but not beyond the fact that I already know exactly how conservative Republicans in general feel on those issues anyway. I will admit that I will always feel better with a non-to-less-religious person in a position of power than a religious zealot. If have to explain why, then I don’t know what to say other than turn on the news. But Walker’s response, in and of itself, could just be pandering. I have no idea if he really believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. I’m charitably assuming no.
My actual pain point is his disingenuous use of the “I’m not a scientist” trope, which Republican elected officials have popularized in their recent semi-official response to AGW. I’m sure there are many things Walker takes for granted without having to result to the “I have no personal empirical laboratory proof”” excuse for taking a position. Can Scott Walker explain how planes can fly? Does he agree planes can fly? Maybe he doesn’t. But does he fly anyway? A plane in the sky, the fossil record, they have scientific reality, or they don’t. Or, the extreme case, there is no science, only divine will manifest. This isn’t “does E=MC2?” Every person who has a basic American education (outside, perhaps of some versions of home schooling) has been presented with the basic concepts, and the physical evidence, of evolution. If someone tells me our entire Universe was created the moment i write this sentence, i can’t argue with them based upon Scott Walker’s ground rules. I can only point out I choose to believe the world is indeed older than 60 seconds, and i can say I saw a dinosaur bone, and I choose to believe it’s old. I think a reasonable person can have an opinion on this. Its not like “does God exist?”
@Nathan Blue:
I thought i remembered you as much more civil and thoughtful, but maybe it was someone else. Was there a guy named Nate? Anyway, I hope I’ve satisfied your suspicions in my post 16. But please let me know what you think. If you tone down the stereotypical right wing poisonous tone and rhetoric of resentment, I’d be happy to have a spirited debate.
When I was in school in the 1950’s and 60’s teachers still taught that ”ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
We now know (and have known for YEARS and YEARS at least since 1978) that this theory is based on fraud.
But to this day many so-called ”evolutionists” still claim it to be true.
@Tom: Uh, please don’t assume the high road. You’ve forfeited that with the bigoted rants earlier in post 10.
The evolution question is a trap for liberal opponents, and you’re altering the scope of this issue to match a media-led ax to grind. You’ve swallowed the “reps are stupid and don’t believe in science” bit, while not understanding the level of your own ignorance. Perhaps you should not be such a hate-monger?
I am civil and thoughtful when talking to adults, but less so with grown children reciting a fallacy meant to marginalize free thought. You need a reality check, and I’m happy to oblige.
The “tropes” you speak of that Reps have adopted are out of necessity . . . due to the tropes imposed by the left (equally, if not more ignorant). Your comparison of how airplanes fly to God and evolution is weak. You’ve ignored the ideas postulated, and simply grafted simple physics to more complex challenges, and that’s plain stupid. You’re also using a logical fallacy: if Walker won’t answer an evolution question, that means he doesn’t believe in evolution, or science, and is in general, part of the religious dregs we need to purge from public office.
Choose to not believe in God, or religion in general: fine. It’s your right and I’d die to make sure you keep it. But, don’t pretend to have answers you don’t have. Atheism, like all religions and ideologies, thinks it’s “right”, but it has no more proof than it’s opponents.
What’s hilarious is that you are answering evolution questions with things you learned in high school, not understand that science has discovered much and is far from settled. You’re not an evolutionary scientist, and the question “do you believe in evolution” is completely absurd.
Like a fundamentalist saying the existence and truth of Jesus is “settled”, you are saying the same thing, and with the same amount of non-evidence. You’re running on old science, and no more informed than Walker, though you mouth off as if you are. “evolution” is very loaded word, and if they really wanted to ask Walker a real question, they’d say “do you believe species change over time (Darwin’s original statement, free of God or Non-god)”, or “do you believe the in self-organization theory”, or a host of things. “Evolution” has become a partisan kill-word used exclusively by the left to marginalize the opposition.
And by the way, you’re an idiot troll. You’re not here to have a spirited debate. Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of civility and thoughtlessness.
If Walker gives the answer that fits within the template of Leftist talking points does it mean he is recognized as a decent candidate for the presidency or does it imply he is playing the base like Obama did with homosexual marriage? After all, Obama was against homosexual marriage before he was for it.
Walker can be seen as an equivocator, like our president or he can be perceived as a moral man who knows his limits and refuses to make moral judgements without a reliable premise.
If that’s the case, then you’re truly a troll’s puppet, given your interminable, impassioned response.
Today James Lewis posits 10 questions to ask any reporter who might insist a litmus test on Darwin’s theory of evolution is required for a potential presidential candidate.
Would Obama have been able to answer each of those?
No, not at all.
But then he was NOT vetted whatsoever.
He was blocked for so he faced no tough questions.
Still he put his foot in his mouth:
Recall his comment to Joe, the plumber.
57 states.
Typical white people.
….
….
….
@Skook:
Bravo. Very well put. The question was indeed flawed, and not transparent in its intent. As a significant minority of Americans have little appetite for theocracy, a more honest query would be a direct question whether he literally interprets as binding moral law the words inscribed on thousands year old scrolls found in the desert.
@Tom:
Conservative Republicans in general……what? Like Ritchie, I’m also an engineer. Science is my life. So I don’t understand why people believe scientific theory is settled science. If that were the case, it would no longer be a theory. The greater part of the world knows Einstein’s theory of relativity. What they may not know is that there are scientist trying to disprove the theory every single day. Are they relativity deniers? No, they are scientist working the scientific method.
My faith doesn’t require me to deny the scientific consensus that the Earth is about four billion years old. I believe in evolution, but I reject the belief that doing so requires me to believe in common descent. If science somehow proves common descent, then I’m switching to the Ancient Alien Theory.
@Tom: Creationism will play well in Iowa caucus. It has boosted both Huckabee and Santorum in the past. They will probably finish 1-2-3. Will be interesting to hear more from Walker as they move up to New Hampshire Primary. Bush Christie Kasich strong here. A Walker 3rd would make him clear front runner—To South Carolina where it turns dirty as Bush pulls out all the stops to derail Walker.
Florida will go Bush–Rubio out—Perry waiting in Texas.
Impossible to predict outcome of this marathon
Huckabee and Santorum are sideshow candidates with no chance of winning. GOP elitists can push Jeb Bush all they want, but his only way of winning is for Christie to drop out early, and the grassroots conservative vote gets divided such that Bush squeaks out barely on top aided by crossover dems voting in GOP primaries. The fact that Walker is taking so much flak from the leftist media shows who they are really afraid of. I get the impression that Cruz has alienated too many GOP elitists to get over the hump, which I feel is unfortunate. Perry has to overcome his disasterous campaign performance in 2012, as well as the bogus trial against him in Austin. Jindal needs to do more to improve his name recognition, and Carson may be hampered by his lack of political experience, despite his intellectual brilliance. Rubio has baggage over his perceived flip-flopping on immigration.
It appears that the GOP elitists have not learned that it is a losing proposition to run a “democrat-lite” candidate, based upon the McConnel-Boehner response to the last 3 election results.
Agreed Huckabee and Santorum are sideshows, as is Creationism. Walker won’t distance himself till after Iowa. I think he’s got a puncher’s chance against Bush.
One truth–As Ohio goes so goes The Presidency–I’m picking Gov.Kasich to emerge as the longshot winner.
@JoeThePimpernel: Actually, Joe, there has and continues to be evolution within a genus. (This means a new species has been created.) I am not aware of evolution at the order level where a new genus has been created. For evolution to have occurred from a single cell, that would have had to have happened some where in the past. So, while evolution continues to occur within a genus, that does not prove the whole theory of evolution as Darwin described in his “The Origin of the Species”. So, evolution remains a theory and not a fact. (By the way, GMO is evolution by intelligent design!)
@John: @Tom:@Rich Wheeler: Consider this:
The origins of the universe is proposed to be (which I believe) the “Big Bang Theory”. By this, the entire universe originated from one miniscule, dense particle so heavy that it compressed to the point that it exploded, creating everything we can see and all that we cannot throughout the universe.
Do YOU actually believe that? Do you have that much FAITH to believe that tale? If so, where did that particle come from?
IF you believe that, well, you DO have faith. If that is the actual origination of all things, why COULDN’T there be a God?
@Nanny: Obama can’t even answer the question of if he will sign into law a bill that will create 42,000 jobs with private industry footing the entire bill.
@Bill:
The Big Bang Theory is rooted in pretty solid science. But it mystifies scientists because the universe should have stopped expanding by now, and it hasn’t. Also, Stephen Hawkins proposed that there was absolutely nothing prior to the big bang, just a super massive black hole, hence no time. You can read that in his Theory of Everything. Good book by the way. The problem is, you have to divide by zero an almost infinite number of times to arrive at his conclusions. Scientists don’t like dividing by zero. So who is to say God didn’t great the particle and start the Big Bang? And there is nothing to say that seven days to God (including the day of rest) is seven Earth days. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to shake my faith.
@Aqua: Nor mine. My point was, if you can wrap you mind around what would be required to make the Big Bang a viable theory, how could one deny the possibility of the existence of God?
@Tom: And I’ll take your ill use of “large” words to be a concession of defeat, being you can’t respond intelligently to a single point any one offers you that doesn’t fit into your “blah blah, thousand year old scrolls, blah blah, creationism…religion is a disease we must cure, so that all may be part of the enlightened few…like me!”
Again, you’re an idiot troll.
I don’t find you intelligent in the least.
Anything else, slick? I have my dictionary ready in case you need to dazzle me with that awkward vocabulary of yours. I could sum up your beliefs and arguments in a sentence or two, all using Hemingway-esque simplicity. What you believe isn’t complex or “new”. It’s devoid of critical thought.
@Joethepimpernel #4:
“There is a quantum leap between organic molecules and living creatures.”
No more than there is a “quantum leap” between the number “1” and the number “5,000,000,000.”
It takes no magic, no “intelligent design” to get from one to five billion. All it takes is a patient count and a lot of time to get there.
Similarly, whenever it happened that organic molecules (that are found in quite a few places throughout the solar system) began to replicate (and the consensus is that this likely happened quite a few times), there were at least 4 billion years between then and now. In very real terms, the human mind simply cannot comprehend IN LINEAR TERMS the enormity of this much time. In the absence of such temporal comprehension, it is understandable that man’s dazzled mind turns to a magic answer.
There is no way to prove “intelligent design” any more than there is a way to disprove it. However, science works with logic, statistics and evidence. The fossil record provides a treasure-trove of evidence that evolution has been and continues to be at work adapting life on Earth as the planet changes with age. Statistics that express vanishingly remote possibilities at a given time become compellingly probable when the unlikely event is given millions or billions of years to occur. Logic suggests that the denial of such verifiable evidence does not produce knowledge.
Scott Walker’s answer to the evolution question may have been politically expedient, but it also was reasonable. Politicians are unusually misinformed on questions of science, and it is unsportsmanlike to dwell on the fact. Roosevelt wasn’t a nuclear physicist when he started the Manhattan Project ball rolling, but it is enough that someone was.
Cut Walker some slack.
@Nanny #18:
This thread opened with an acknowledgment that Max Planck (the “father of Quantum Physics) believed in some form of intelligent design. Note also that Albert Einstein of Relativity fame and quite a bit more also believed in God, but Einstein’s God (according to Albert) did not roll dice, and with this “knowledge” firmly in hand, Einstein never was able to glimpse the magnificence of Quantum Mechanics. He couldn’t get past Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. MY point is that being the Father of something doesn’t make you the knower of everything, and it doesn’t make everything you believe right. These guys were both undeniably brilliant, and they may even have been right about God. But for all of their brilliance, they made mistakes, and neither of them could prove that God either exists or that He doesn’t. There are limits to what science can do. Beyond that limit there is only faith. Faith can supply a type of knowledge that is similar to the knowledge that science provides, but the two are not the same. Scientific knowledge is verifiable, while the knowledge that derives from one’s faith is not. The two should not be confused.
@Bill #31:
“if you can wrap you mind around what would be required to make the Big Bang a viable theory, how could one deny the possibility of the existence of God?”
This is a very good point, Bill, though perhaps not entirely for the reason that you think.
Your amazement that some people – but not others – have no problem comprehending the Big Bang may be nothing more than the differences in intuition that one finds among a group of intelligent people.
However, the denial of the possibility of the existence of God is down right illogical, under any circumstance.
Logically speaking, the statement “God does not exist” is a negative existential proposition. One learns in Logic 201 that it is logically impossible to prove a negative existential proposition. It can’t be done using the mathematics of logic, and it can’t be done rhetorically.
In this particular case, a proof of the negative proposition would require one to know EVERYTHING that DOES exist in order to rule out the possibility that God was hiding somewhere IN EXISTANCE that had been overlooked. To logically eat your own tail, you would need to BECOME God in order to prove that God DOESN’T exist.
Atheists are simply too uneducated to appreciate the logical impossibility of their belief that God doesn’t exist. Anyone remotely LESS stupid has to accept that God MIGHT exist, even if no evidence to that effect has been found. Agnosticism is intellectually defensible, Atheism is not.
@George Wells:
There is no evidence in the fossil record of one species producing a different species.
There is no evidence, nor has it been shown in any experiment that the building block of cellular reproduction – DNA – has ever self- replicated. Even the most primitive form of “life” , the virus, cannot self-replicate, but must hijack the ribosomes and endoplasmic reticulum of a cell in order to replicate. Ribosomes cannot replicate themselves, but must read the genetic template of DNA to build new ribosomes. DNA, and proteins in general, begin to denature at 105 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature required for the organochemical bonding that would have to take place for DNA, RNA or cellular proteins to form without catalytic enzymes and the function of the ribosome.
The fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution theory that you espouse – the unfathomable length of billions of years for such events to happen randomly – flies in the face of the fossil record from the Cambrian age when multiple new species arose at almost the same time, with no evidence of transitional trans species evolution. There is no definitive evidence of any example of macroevolution, (one species becoming another) yet this is accepted on faith by evolutionary biologists in the same manner as those who believe in a supernatural being as the source of all creation.
The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest. His faith in God was not shaken by his discoveries. The choice boils down rather simply. If we accept the currently understood mechanics of the universe, that you cannot get something from nothing, combined with the laws of entropy, then at some point eons past something or someone not bound by the physical nature of the universe – at least as we currently understand them – had to act in some fashion to create the universe and set it in motion. Either there is a supernatural creator who did this, or there is an aspect of the physical construct of the universe we do not understand that is not bound by the very essence of the universe.
The latter concept, to me at least, seems far less probable.
@Pete #36:
“Either there is a supernatural creator who did this, or there is an aspect of the physical construct of the universe we do not understand that is not bound by the very essence of the universe. The latter concept, to me at least, seems far less probable.”
Your second option should have ended with the word “understand.” If you acknowledge that you don’t understand everything in the universe, then how can you require that something that you DON’T understand must, by definition, NOT be bound by the Laws of the universe? You simply don’t know everything. That’s enough.
“Probable”? Man’s ignorance has a very long history, and there is no need whatsoever to justify the assumption that it continues today. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that man’s ignorance exists, unlike the existence of a supernatural creator. “Probable” depends upon a preponderance of evidence, not wishful thinking, not hope.
Your pretty treatise on DNA et. al. is unimpressive beyond your command of nomenclature. Similar pretty arguments have been used repeatedly throughout the history of science to explain a host of theories that were subsequently discredited. Yours is no different.
Evolution is a theory to explain adaptations/mutations of species. It requires a belief in the chaos theory of Spontaneous Generation of life (aka abiogenesis).
Intelligent-Design is a theory to explain the creation of life, with Creationism as one form of intelligent design.
Neither theory can be said to have been proven to be the mode of the genesis of life. and science is never absolutely “settled”. Science has not been able to create DNA or induce abiogenesis from base chemical elements. Human science today can manipulate DNA, even creating new hybrids from splicing genetic material from flora into fauna and visa-versa. Do they not do this through intelligent design? Can anyone truly disprove the possible existence of higher even divine entity(s) when we are still discovering new forms of life?
Sounds pretty close-minded if you ask me. The truth is that atheists don’t really “know” god doesn’t exist, they just accept their belief based on their faith in the words of fellow atheists, which makes it little more than an arrogant, skeptical peer accepted theory based on consensus. Interestingly, this is the same methodology the arrogant AGW crowd has adopted with
global warmingclimate change, belief based on a consensus. Those who believe in divine creation too take much of their belief on faith, however many can often point to unexplained-yet-recorded paranormal phenomenon events (some miracles if you will, that appear to buoy their beliefs. The true scientist is open to expanding knowledge, in understanding the why, and even daring to wonder “what if”. They rely on proving their theories with experiments that can be physically recreated and proven on various scales (other then only on a laboratory scale, or within the limitations of a computer program). Rather then relying on flawed statistical models that might suggest a theory and accepting that to be absolute proof or the fallacies of consensus theories, which is why science is never “settled”. We are still learning more and more every day, and it’s impossible to predict what we may learn tomorrow.@Ditto #38:
” Can anyone truly disprove the possible existence of higher even divine entity(s)…?”
See my #35 for the answer.
Well done.
Suppose I claimed the entire universe is a simulation running inside my computer? Can you disprove that? No… you can’t. If it can’t be disproved, it’s religion not science.
@Jim S:
Yes we can prove you wrong easily. The universe existed before computers and before you. What’s more, we shut off your utilities the universe is still there.
@Ditto:
No, you can’t. The computer you see is merely an avatar for my computer which along with it’s owner and utilities exist outside of space/time. You can no more access it than a can a character in Grand Theft Auto shut off the the computer running the program.
@Jim S:
I think it’s time for you to take your meds.
@George Wells:
Well then, why don’t you impress us by explaining how it is incorrect? Your comment is the rather weak attempt at dismissiveness against a point based on clearly known science which you cannot refute. That is the difference between leftists and actual scientists – real scientists WANT other scientists to go over their data and results to look for errors that might have been made. Leftists want to clothe themselves in the mantle of scientific pretentiousness in order to throw down angry dismissive comments – like you did in your post – rather than admit they can’t refute a point that damages the leftist’s position.
Let me see if I can break this down for you. I am well aware of the very basic concept that I do not know everything there is to know in the universe, and that it is impossible for me to ever attain complete understanding of the universe. That being said, there are physical constants in the universe (which I already mentioned…you know…the “can’t get something from nothing” and the ‘entropic nature of the universe’ concepts) which have been demonstrated over and over to be immutable traits of the physical universe. Over the estimated 14-15 trillion years (based on ‘Big Bang Theory’ conceptualization of the expansion of the universe) there has never once been shown evidence of either of these two intrinsic laws of the universe being violated. Entropy has never been naturally reversed, and no one has ever found an instance of anything being brought into existence from nothing. (Point of fact, Pasteur disproved the Miasma theory of spontaneous biogenesis, which for some reason evolutionary biologists always want to gloss over). That being the case, it would seem that some entity or some thing that is able to act in a manner unbound by these two otherwise immutable laws of the universe did something to produce the entire universe from “nothing” at a high state of energy such that for the last 14 trillion years and continuing forward for however many trillions more until there is a state of entropic equilibrium such that there is no flow of energy whatsoever anywhere in the universe.
You, it would seem, consider me a fool for believing in a supernatural Creator who acted in a manner outside the known laws of physics to bring forth the universe. You consider me perhaps a coward too afraid to acknowledge that I don’t know everything, who chooses to believe in God to deal with the anxiety of my uncertainty of what the universe holds. You, it appears to me, prefer to steep yourself pridefully in an attitude that boils down essentially to: “I don’t know how things got to be the way they are in the universe, but I DO know that there is no supernatural entity that is responsible, and to whom I owe my existence or who has any right to judge what I have done with my existence.”
The irony is, I am not afraid to admit that my belief is faith-based, tempered by an understanding of the science around me. You, however, have a belief that is absolutely based on faith – that you try desperately to conceal as being based solely on science. This is in spite of the fact that science shows there is only one direction in which entropy goes, and that nothing can be produced from nothing…yet you believe such a possibility exists outside of the “supernatural”, but humanity just hasn’t found a trace of evidence of such. This aren’t alchemical con games, or psychic claptrap, GW. Entropy is the ultimate result of eternity, the Universal Grim Reaper. Show me a single instance of entropy reversing, and I’ll become an atheist.
@Jim S #40:
Positive propositions are simple to prove, requiring only that an example satisfying the requirements be submitted for verification.
Negative propositions have no such convenient proof, the corresponding evidence being the submission of the entire null set equaling the whole universe, an obvious impracticality. Negative propositions have no proof.
If a proposition that cannot be proved is asserted, there still may be evidence in support of the proposition, and the proposition may deserve consideration depending on the strength of the supporting evidence. The absence of proof does not constitute religion unless the proposition is also accompanied by the absence of supporting evidence. In the absence of either proof or reasonably compelling evidence, what is left is nothing more than belief.
Generally speaking, religion is more complex than belief, usually consisting of a collection of related beliefs organized by a hierarchy of (usually) men who exercise control over their… “flock” of believers. A “belief” is simply an un-provable proposition that is also usually not supported by verifiable evidence. Believing that your next “investment” in a “one armed bandit” will produce a jackpot is neither science nor religion.
@Pete #44:
“You, it would seem, consider me a fool for believing in a supernatural Creator who acted in a manner outside the known laws of physics to bring forth the universe.”
Not at all, Pete. You are clearly no fool, and I have no reason to attempt to alter your belief. (It is a belief because it is unprovable and also lacks compelling evidence to support it.) The absence of proof or evidence does NOT disprove the Creationist Theory for the same reason that Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. All of the null hypotheses in the World don’t amount to a single iota of proof of anything other than Man’s ignorance. And in your favor, you correctly identify your relationship with GOD as a belief, not as knowledge.
“You, … (believe) essentially: …I DO know that there is no supernatural entity…”
Wrong again, Pete.
I know nothing of the sort. YES, I have BELIEFS regarding the formation of the universe, but insufficient evidence to PONTIFICATE upon the instigation of the event. I am in possession of insufficient evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural being.
“Show me a single instance of entropy reversing, and I’ll become an atheist.”
Are you well informed on what happens inside of a black hole? Does God tell you? So far as I know, the only insight we get there comes through the speculative mathematics of theoretical cosmology. Opinions differ, but what little I’ve followed suggest that those inviolable Laws of the Universe don’t all apply there. Is entropy one of them? I honestly don’t know, and I’m CERTAINLY not smug enough to suggest that I DO. But discovering an instance of entropy reversal would not disprove the existence of GOD. It would simply prove, once again, that our previous theories were not all correct.
““can’t get something from nothing””
Evidently this “Law” of the universe does not always apply. Either it doesn’t apply to GOD, or it doesn’t apply as often as we THINK it does. Back to the illogic of proving a negative, the fact that we haven’t DEMONSTRATED a verifiable example of getting something from nothing doesn’t prove that it doesn’t occur. It only proves that we haven’t found it yet. Cern found the Higgs boson – the so-called “GOD” particle, proving its existence. BEFORE the Higgs boson was found, it WASN’T found, but that didn’t prove it didn’t exist. It only proved that we hadn’t found it. Yet.
By the way, what’s all this crap about “leftists”? What does politics have to do with science or religion? Just another smoke screen?
@Pete #44:
“Well then, why don’t you impress us by explaining how it is incorrect?” (Ref. your DNA explanation)
I found nothing in your DNA discussion that was incorrect. Neither did I find anything in it that warranted excitement or comment. Just as was the case with your “explanation” of the alternate theories you expounded upon later in #36, you did not disprove either, you simply noted which one you BELIEVED in. I am not in the business of trying to change anyone’s mind on these issues. I’m simply explaining MY point of view, which is essentially an agnostic one unencumbered by beliefs not supported by evidence.
@George Wells: What I was trying to get to in a somewhat humorous way, was that religion is based on faith… it can never be proved or disproved. With science, one guy can say my theory of gravity predicts this…… and another says Oh, yeah, well mine predicts this…. . Those predictions can be tested, and one theory wins…. At least until a new one comes along that better fits the real world. 😉
@Ditto:
Not for an hour and 20 minutes. 😉
@George Wells:
The Higgs Boson analogy doesn’t actually work in the context under discussion, since the math that was used to predict the existence of the Higgs Boson doesn’t violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, nor the laws of entropy.
We all know of the theory of black holes being some kind of super space vacuum that bends the fabric of space-time to pop out somewhere else in the universe as a “white hole” spewing out matter and energy – which is steeped more in fantasy than reality. With all the black holes being found (that don’t give off light/heat) you would think if white holes existed we might have found such bright, matter-and-energy-spewing objects in the sky.
Perhaps you are alluding to the possibility that in spite of the observed continued expansion of the universe, that eventually there will be sufficient black holes to exert gravitational forces to start a contraction of all matter in the universe, resulting after an unfathomable amount of time, the re-formation of the “cosmic egg” of Big Bang Theory, and restarting the process again for another cycle of multiple trillions of years?
Fine – for the sake of argument let us accept the cyclic cosmic egg/expansion-contraction theory of the universe. Interestingly, if my very rudimentary understanding of physics is accurate (and I would gratefully defer to an actual physicist on this since I am not very well educated in the field) such a theory would abide by the law of conservation of matter and energy, but would seem to act – via gravitational forces pulling all matter in the universe back into the cosmic egg -as a “reset” with regard to the laws of entropy.
That still leaves us with the question of where the very first “cosmic egg” came from. And that, Mr. Wells, is where you and I will need to agree to disagree.