You can, however, say that magic man done it and poofed the computer into existence as it was at that point in time

It is naive to assume that some imaginary sky fairy, or fairies, created the universe as a one off effort, before retiring and that evolution ended after humanity appeared. But creationist cranks can’t help it because they don’t live in the real world where research and evidence are needed to back up their outlandish claims.

Ok, I’m good for a couple of months now. [Goes back to work.]

I suggest Dr. Miller’s classic on that very subject: “Finding Darwin’s God”.

ISBN-13: 978-0060930493

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

This stuff should be moved to current events or religion classes, in order to protect America’s science reputation.

And you’re right that we need to make clear to educators and education authorities that evolution is just science – teaching what scientists know about it is in no way teaching atheist materialism.

If there is the possiblity of an alternative explanation proceeding on a contradictory path from a shared beginning point with Darwinian theory, you are obliged to pursue it to a credible alternative theory before you attack someone else, and I don’t see the ID people putting in any work.

jadavison.wordpress.com

It is naive to assume that everything one sees must have an adaptive value. Yet that is the way the Darwinian mind invariably operates. They can’t help it because they are congenitally unable to imagine a purpose in the origin and evolution of life. Like nearly all pure white cats they are stone deaf to what Einstein called “the music of the spheres,” a music some of us can hear loud and clear.

Once again I quote Bertrand Russell -

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no grounds whatsoever for believing it to be true.”

jadavison.wordpress.com

Erasmus thinks that ants using their antenae could be mislead like him using his human eyes. But no wonder. Selectiosts think that ants percieve the reality the same way as an armchair neodarwinist looking at collection of dried insects drinking whiskey. Franz Heikertinger had a great fun discussing selections concept of “mimicry” in his voluminous work refuting “natural selection” as the source of so-called “mimicry”.

I know you as a regular at After The Bar Closes, Panda’s Thumb “inner sanctum.” Martin’s cardinal sin is that he happens to be one of my supporters. We have both been banished from the proceedings at Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb and God (or Gods) only knows how many other bastions of Darwinian mysticism.

Is Carl willing to let the Loom turn into a flame pit? We will soon see.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Davison in your illicit fornication with Laplace have you ever considered that you could not argue otherwise? It must be so, for it is so, and it could not be so in any other way, for it is perfect and must be perfect and can be nothing but.

Martin still running around saying Gould couldn’t read German, I see. I offer the suggestion that everything that VMartin says be tempered with a shot of grain alcohol followed by a jabbing a needle to the hand. It just doesn’t ever make sense otherwise.

It is true that Darwin could not read German but that is not true of Stephen Jay Gould, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr and William Provine, devout, rabid Darwinians all. They knee-jerk reject any model that isn’t firmly based on chance. Their’s is a congenital, deficiency disease for which there is no present cure. Ernst Mayr even described himself as a “dyed-in-the-wool” Darwinian.
The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132.

It was an English biologist, William Bateson, that read and recognized the significance of Mendel’s 1868 paper (in German) and founded the science of Modern Genetics: but Bateson later rejected Mendelism as having nothing to do with either speciation or evolution in general.
Davison, J.A. 1993, The “Blind Alley”: Its significance for evolutionary theory. Rivista di Biologia, 86: 101-111.

I believe that we are all victims in a determined universe exactly as Einstein remained convinced to his dying day. The only place chance plays a role is on the quantum level and I do not believe that quantum physics ever had anything to do with evolution. I also do not believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble into a living, evolving entity even once. I believe, with Robert Broom, that there was a Plan. a word he had the temerity to capitalize. I further believe the Plan has been realized with the present, terminal biota.

“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control…..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.”
Albert Einstein

Regarding Eimer’s Orthogenesis: only one work by him has been translated into English as far as I know. Jay Gould quoted and criticised only it because he was obviously wholly dependent on translations. It is a good custom and token of Anglo-American darwinists that they do not know languages. Darwin, Gould, Dawkins – none of them could read German. Consequently important works by German anti-darwinists were never discussed and darwinists pretend they do not exist. Eimer, Driesch, Portman, Suchantke, etc, etc…

Thanks for the anonymous support. It would be much more significant if you used your real name.

In the same aspects, the Darwinian model has been exposed for the fraud it is and is now losing ground. Thanks to people like Prf. Davison, Vmartin and others. In a word your on the titanic and it’s sinking. They thought they were invincible too.