Highly, Intricately, and Precisely Integrated Networks of Entities and Interactions
As Carl Woese explained in 2004:The cells we know are not just loosely coupled arrangements of quasi-independent modules. They are highly, intricately, and precisely integrated networks of entities and interactions. … To think that a new cell design can be created more or less haphazardly from chunks of other modern cell designs is just another fallacy born of a mechanistic, reductionist view of the organism.
Mechanistic, reductionist view? It appears Woese put his finger on precisely what he believed in: evolution. Replace “cell” with just about any biological structure and Woese has, in a nutshell, summarized evolutionary theory, what little there is of it. As Richard Dawkins once explained:
The bombardier beetle’s ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be lying around. That’s often how evolution works.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
h/t: El hombre
Darwinists have nothing intelligent to say on this issue. Sure, they will readily spout some unscientific drivel based on their atheistic philosophical assumptions, but more and more people are getting wise to the con. Every con game gets exposed at some point, and it brings great joy to my heart to see Darwinism, the biggest con of all time, shrivel under the light of modern science. Good riddance!
ReplyDeletehttp://smbe2016.org/
DeleteYeah evolutionist are all cowering in fear and will discuss no other subject than "Finding a new job in the light of ID rebuttal of evolution"
Evolutionists don't need to cower yet since tt has never been about the science. It has always been about religion. Currently, the politics of fascism and propaganda is on their side. But not for much longer. There's something brewing under the surface that they cannot see. One day soon, when they least suspect it, it will suddenly leap up and bite them in the ass.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Society cannot tolerate a biology whose metaphysical base is outmoded and misleading: [...] a distorted and incomplete reflection [...].
ReplyDeleteIf only he had said science instead of society, he would be out of the closet (and a reputation and job).
I didn't try very hard but I couldn't find anything worth reading - apart from to mine quotes.
It seems to be the efflux of a mind on a powdery DA+DRI.
we can compare this with changing a car into an airplane step wise. its impossible even for an intelligent designer. so we realy need to believe that a natural process do that thousands times?
ReplyDeleteThe paper sounded like his thesis for his Ph.D. In Evolutionary Philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWoese also made this observation in the same paper.
ReplyDelete"Any educated layman knows that evolution is what distinguishes the living world from the inanimate. If one's representation of reality takes evolution to be irrelevant to understanding biology, then it is one's representation, not evolution, whose relevance should be questioned!"
Sir Isaac Newton made this "observation":
Delete"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."
Sir Isaac Newton
Phillymike
DeleteSir Isaac Newton made this "observation":
Er Mike, science has progressed an amazingly long way in the 300 years since Newton was around. Ya know? :)
But as Woese said "To think that a new cell design can be created more or less haphazardly from chunks of other modern cell designs is just another fallacy born of a mechanistic, reductionist view of the organism."
DeleteThe kind of evolution you believe in is impossible. In a moment of clarity even Woese could see that.
Mike, try reading the whole article, not just the one quote-mined snippet. Woese isn't arguing against all of evolution,just a few current (12 years ago that is) ideas about how evolution progressed.
DeleteReading quote-mined snippets is the worst way to guage what the author's message really was.
"Any educated layman knows that evolution is what distinguishes the living world from the inanimate. If one's representation of reality takes evolution to be irrelevant to understanding biology, then it is one's representation, not evolution, whose relevance should be questioned!"
DeleteHilarious question begging. Classic own-goal.
Religion drives science, and it matters
ReplyDeleteHow about: Hubris* drives science, and it matters?
*Hubris: scientific arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, etc...
Hi Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteLove your blog. Im a layman, but very much interested in this subject area and its intersection with philosophy. You write with such clarity that is very accessible so that I can understand what is being said. Keep up the great work!! If you get a chance I would love to know your viewpoint and scientific critique(counter weight) on some lectures/debates I listen to on youtube in the field of evolutionary biology. They seem to be plagued with the issues you bring up often in your blog(Aristotelianism, Serendipity, False expectations etc). Here is a very recent example to start with:
Title: How fast is evolution? Philip Gingerich CEM
Youtube Account: The Center for Evolution & Medicine ASU
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVxZUaPsc0Q
I post the youtube video title and account just in case you might be suspicious of random posters.
Once again, thanks for your work here and look forward to more of your posts.
Thanks so much Julian. I'll put that on my list; however, it is usually better to work with articles rather than videos, especially long videos.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBelow is yet another link exposing the intolerance (and hypocrisy) of leftists in academia, the vast majority of which are atheists/Darwinists. Pathetic is the kindest word I can think of. I have very little in common with these primates. If I were a Darwinist, I would probably try to hasten their de-selection. But alas, thank God, I am not a Darwinist.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/tolerate_differ102853.html