Commenting on a random blog, II

1. You want to talk origin of the universe or evolution? When we’re talking origin we’re on almost equal footing — neither of us knows for sure, but at least science has natural, measurable, observable data on its side.

In a universe in which scientists are imagining multiple universes the term natural has no meaning. Indeed, it can only be defined or falsified/verified in opposition to the supernatural. It’s not clear what the supernatural is but if the “supernatural” is to be excluded from science then calling things natural is merely a unverifiable and undefined truism.

Despite the notion of “natural,” modern creation myths often differ little from ancient myths. Aside from being less imaginative and less artistic there is little difference.


…Lee Smolin added an ingenious Darwinian spin which reduces the apparent statistical improbability of our existence. In Smolin’s model, universes give birth to daughter universes, which vary in their laws and constants. Daughter universes are born in black holes produced by a parent universe, and they inherit its laws and constants but with some small possibility of random change–’mutation’. Those daughter universes that have what it takes to reproduce (last long enough to make black holes, for instance) are, of course, the universes that pass their laws and constants to their daughters. ….
So universes that have what it takes to make stars are favoured in this cosmic Darwinism.
(The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins :91)


Gaia, the beautiful, rose up,
Broad blossomed, she that is the steadfast base
Of all things. And fair Gaia first bore
The starry Heaven, equal to herself,
To cover her on all sides and to be
A home forever for the blessed Gods.

The Darwinian urge to merge back into Mother Nature while rejecting “Father God” and so on isn’t new. The only thing that is new is that people are mistaking patterns of thought which have more to do with their own psychological dynamics than facts, logic and evidence as the epistemic equivalent of an actual, scientific theory.

ID has is a belief… system: “God did it,” but can offer no proof whatsoever.

Lack of evidence has never stopped Darwinists from passing off their creation myths to ignorant schoolchildren as the equivalent of science.

Your “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” argument is only true in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, so no “laws” have been broken.

This is the equivalent of arguing that you would never have to clean your house if you left all the doors and windows open.

No physical evidence of evolution?

Evolution is merely change, any change. And of course there is evidence that change happens. It’s much like excrement in that respect. But in any event, there is no theory of progressive evolution which explains life as we know it. Indeed, to the extent that the unfalsifiable hypothetical goo that gives rise to evolutionary creation myths has ever been specified into an actual scientific theory it has been specified in the theory of natural selection. Yet natural selection predicts conservation and destruction, not construction, and this is what is generally observed.

In addition, evolution was directly observed in the laboratory by Dr. Richard Lenski in 2008 (as part of a 20-year long experiment involving E. Coli bacteria).

What type of change do you think was observed and how does it verify evolutionary creation myths?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: