That is 100% false.
To those who don’t mind confronting this two page wall of words, the following summarizes how from my perspective and the light that I use to reveal the world, it is evolution that is the illusion.
When we speak of illusions, we are using the analogy of the visual world to describe how we understand the various aspects of our existence. Focussing on what we are seeing in this moment, we might describe it as a spark that arises within the relationship between the two unseen poles of self and other. As observers, we are at this moment thinking about ourselves observing the observed. We can feel more or less alienated within that relationship. Where everything connects and is in harmony, is when we are in love with the object of our attention. The giving of one’s being to the beloved, unites us. More than perception is involved, but rather a connection to the soul of the other. It comes across as one big ego trip to talk about being one with the universe, but it actually requires the emptying of everything one is. Love being the Fount from which all creation is brought into being, to know any created being as it is, to know its living truth, requires one to be in love. The rest is illusion, a world of ideas only partially flowing from the reality which they describe, large gaps filled with assumptions.
Evolution is illusory because it ignores the existence of organisms in themselves. The situation would be like having a mosaic smashed, with its parts scattered and many missing. In this case, trying to piece it together, the result can only be a distortion, primarily representing one’s basic understanding of the world rather than what is there.
Further to the above:
Any living being has an existential structure that includes some degree of the psychological and of the physical in constituting the unity that it is. There is an essential spiritual structure that gives form to an individual organism, its progenitors and offspring. That soul can be manifested in any number of forms. The morphology and genetics that we find in organisms more or less coincides with that soul. But because we fail to acknowledge its reality, we end up with the distortion of what we consider to be species.
Of each kind of life form, there was a first of its kind. That first pair, giving rise to all that followed could have been created in a number of different ways. It could be that the first placental creature, having a uterus in which a fertilized egg could grow and develop, did hatch from an egg. I don’t know. Time being secondary to causality, I can’t also say what would have been the temporal order. To me, it doesn’t really matter because its appearance in the world was through a process of creation from nothing, utilizing pre-existing material and psychological components to construct its particular form.
That life gives rise to life, in evolutionary theory is used to fill the void that exists when we do not recognize the reality of creation. What people envision is matter taking on more complex forms in successive generations. The random activity of matter is seen by many as the underlying cause within the belief system that sees a single-cell organismas being the forebear of mankind. Others, including those who would identify themselves as pantheists, deists, or religious naturalists, and it appears some Christians, believe that there is an additional order superimposed on that which governs molecules, which led them to collect in various configurations resulting in growing diversity and greater complexity. One approaches the idea of creation believing that the order we see is a Divine Act of bringing the universe into existence. At this point however, the idea of ancestral continuity is not only unnecessary but contradictory in that what is being created are different forms of being, different spiritual realities which reproduce themself in a variety of physical-psychological forms.
As to natural selection, keeping this short, I am reminded of a quote from Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where the witch, addressing Aslan, the Lion with regards to one of the children who betrayed his siblings, says:
“You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill.” “Oh,” said Mr. Beaver. “So that’s how you came to imagine yourself a Queen - because you were the Emporor’s hangman, I see.”
People imagine natural selection, the termination of ancestral lines, as the ruler of life on earth, when it is merely the means by which order is maintained in the natural world.
And we now go over to our correspondant in London where it has been reported that Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, has made an announcement. Jillian, are you there?
Yes David. I’m standing outside the Greenwhich Observatory where earlier today Martin Rees was taking questions from a group of school childre on an educational visit.
And one of the children asked if some people still believed that the sun goes around the earth?
That’s right, David. Of course, there was a lot of laughter at this. But it’s what Martin Rees said next which has shocked everyone in the scientific world.
And that was?
David, I have his words transcribed exactly and I’ll read them out. He said, and I’m quoting directly: ‘Well, you must understand that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west so it does give the illusion of moving around the earth’.
Quite astonishing. But we have to leave it there and go directly to Oxford where Professor Richard Dawki s has said something equally bizarre about evolution. Tim, are you there?
Nuh uh. is not.
Tell Berlinski; he disagrees that Darwinism is scientific
and he’s not Christian, nor fundamentalist
Not Christian, no. But the name might be a give away to his religious background…
And he’s a poster boy and fellow at the Discovery Institute. And so is tarred by association with an organisation that tells outright lies in order to further their agenda. You would do well to investigate them.
Try not to attack the man. Pick one fault with what Berlinski says in that 5 min clip
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
No, he is just wrong. If you want to select which point of his you find most persuasive and make it your own, then post it and I will address it. I do not address Youtube videos. (By the way, I did watch that video in its entirety, and I found nothing he said persuasive.)
As Leaf just said, we are not here to pick the bones from random Youtube videos. You are on a forum. Which is meant to be an arena where people can discuss and debate matters. ‘Look what this guy says!’ doesn’t float my boat to be honest.
YOU pick a point and argue it. By all means use any means at your disposal to back up what you claim and it will be considered on its merit.
And bear in mind that any comments from you (or Berlinski) along the lines of ‘it appears to me…’ or ‘anyone can see…’ or ‘its obvious that…’ etc, will not be treated kindly.
And bear in mind the title of the OP.
I’ve watched this. Well done.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
We can be sure that the OP is true because evolutionists cannot refute that “ex nihilo nihil fit” - they have no explanation for the beginning. We Catholics do know the beginning because twice the Bible tells us, in Genesis 1 and John 1
Neo Darwinism is a conspiratorial polemical system that denies the overwhelming evidence of design in biology. It is simply not science, in the sense of say physics, but is a bankrupt ideology, a religion with no God.
Evolution is contradictory?
Evolution is contradictory?
You attribute too much to the theory of evolution. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Species the Universe and Everything”. The scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is found in cosmology, not in biology. You are asking evolution to explain something that it does not claim to explain. That is your error, not evolution’s error.
Be warned that cosmology involves some very heavy mathematics – more difficult than rocket science. How is your eleven dimensional tensor algebra?
I could breed sunflowers all day for 10,000 generations and still never create a distinct new species. They’re just various combinations of the original group.
There’s a limit to change.
Your sarcasm @rossum behoves your position. You are an evolutionist who is unable to explain how life began, while I am a Catholic who believes that God made Adam and Eve
John Chaikowski wrote, "The science behind evolution is not empirical (do you accept that?)
but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact - no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification,
nothing at all like Physics… (do you accept that?)
I think this is what the public discerns - that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science."
Geotimes Vol 50 2005 p165
This quote from Darwin’s Origin tells us why evolutionists won’t tell us how life started. It’s because Darwin accepted that the Creator started it all and Darwin was not prepared to claim a single progenitor;
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
So, you cannot explain how life began either. Psalm 41:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” God is a “living God” and so cannot be used as an explanation for the origin of life. The origin of life is a process with no living inputs and one or more living outputs. If you use a living God as one of your inputs then you are not describing the origin of life, merely life creating more life.
Just as God cannot create a square circle, God cannot create the first living thing. At best He can create the second living thing since He Himself is the first living thing.
Creationism cannot explain the origin of life, it merely assumes it.
Utterly wrong. Darwin himself , in his Origin, admitted and wrote that “the Creator” breathed the first life. You @rossum reject that Creator God but, unlike Darwin, have no alternative idea of how life started. If you had any idea then you would tell us, but you are unable to do so having rejected your maker.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
There are plenty of sciences which study life and its development: zoology, gynaecology, medicine, agricultural science, paediatrics, nutrition, and many more. None of them consider it part of their remit to determine life’s origin. What’s so special about evolutionary biology that it should be ditched if it doesn’t address matters outside its scope?
Utterly right. A living God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life. If God is alive, then the origin of life is the origin of God. It is impossible for God to create the first living thing. Whatever living things God creates must be the second, third, etc. living things.
Science does not treat science books like scripture, so Darwin’s personal opinions are not relevant. Evolution describes the “Origin of Species” as in the title Darwin’s book. The science of the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Currently there is no theory of abiogenesis, merely a great many hypotheses. Science is working to eliminate hypotheses to get down to few enough that can form a working theory. There is still a lot of work to do in that area.
If you look at my avatar picture, you might be able to work out that I am Buddhist, not Christian. In Buddhism, I am my own maker. What I am now is the sum of my actions in this and in previous lives. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, hence many of the assumptions of the Abrahamic religions do not apply.