ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- "C.S. Lewis and Evolution" is the second of three short documentaries inspired by the book The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society. It examines the evolution of Lewis's views on orthodox Darwinian theory from his time as a college undergraduate to his death in 1963.
www.cslewisweb.com
Regarding the so-called "failure" of intelligent design: In fact, modern science got started largely because early scientists thought that nature was designed, therefore they could expect to find regularities when studying it. Even today, scientists are forced to assume design (whether they admit it or not) any time they reverse engineer a cellular system. Design-based thinking is a great encourager of scientific investigation.
Today people like Behe or Meyer from the religious "(Dis)covery Institute" declare phenomena that we are about to explore as "irreducible complexities", which means inexplorable. Of course that does not stop scientists from making progress but the creationists can jump to the next unexplored phenomenon and declare "irreducible complexity". That reminds me of doomsday prophets or astrologists.
"scientists are forced to assume design" That's complete nonsense and your wishful illusion. If scientists even talk of "design" only the religiously biased see a religious "designer".
C.S. lewis is awesome, my favorite book of his is mere Christianity, his fictional books are also good, my favorite is the space trilogy, in the third book, "that hideous strength" it reminds me of the TH-cam atheists today who all think they are scientists, and they all think sceince somehow disproves God.
No one claims science "disproves God" because science doesn't prove negatives. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
Daulton Horton I found mere Christianity to be ludicrous. Totally changed my opinion of Lewis.
Lewis subtitled _That Hideous Strength_ inside, but not on the cover, as "a fairy tale for grown-ups."
Aside from not conceiving of the Internet or anything like an information/communication network as we know now, Lewis captured in that book what I feel he understood to be the presumptive arrogance and impiety of science guided by a materialistic philosophy and outlook. What the staff of N.I.C.E. presumed to be a grand ascent into enlightment ends up being a sinkhole down to primal barbarism.
Also inside the cover, he quotes a couplet of a poem from whence the book's title is derived:
The poem and the title refer to the Tower of Babel.
Lewis was one of those who brought me (born in a Hindu family) to faith in Christ and the rationality that underlies Christianity.
(paraphrase) "Evolution, the great explanation that cannot explain itself."
Theologian B.B. Warfield
C.S. Lewis was definitely on the right track. He clearly had an open and clear mind. RIP Until we see you again. Job 14:14, 15
A documentary with a very curious introduction by Eugenie Scott, saying "I'm a scientist; I don't know any evidence against Evolution", but sounding a bit like "I'm a lawyer; I don't know any evidence against my client". Never mind about it, though! The remainder of this documentary is great and extremely enlightening. Don't miss it!
Here's some evidence in the Bible in favor of evolution: first, we read that God endows NATURE with power to "bring forth" life. Actually Genesis 1.20,24 says "water..earth." I am paraphrasing that as NATURE. So it is Nature, not God directly, that creates life. But life "reproduces according to kind." In other words God uses PARENTS to be the creators - instead of Himself !! And right after the mention of this specific detail ("reproduction according to kind"), there is the introduction of the theme of SPECIATION. To the extent that "abundance of lifeforms" = speciation. What does the closeness of these two things mean ?? (1)Reproduction according to kind, and (2)Abundant lifeforms.
The second comes immediately after the first !! Ironically "reproduction according to kind" is followed immediately by NEW life forms. The implication is that "reproduction according to kind" is NOT all that is going on in the wombs of the mothers of any species !!. Because speciation is specified as happening right after the production of offspring "according to kind," we are forced to conclude that parenthood produces MORE than "according to kind." In other words, "reproduction according to kind" is a total UNDERSTATEMENT !! For it is thru parents that reproduction NOT according to kind takes place !! In other words, evolution or speciation takes place in the ordinary wombs of ordinary mothers !!
I'd encourage you to read Steve Meyer's book Signature in the Cell (2009). He considers in great depth the alternative explanations of the biological information embedded in DNA. He also discusses the indicators that he thinks point to intelligent design in nature. As for sex and babies: The issue isn't whether human reproduction exists, but whether an unguided mechanism of chance mutations and natural selection is a plausible explanation for its development.
Love the idea of collating Lewis' thoughts in this way. Extremely thought provoking and helpful. But please ditch the background music! Not required.
Yes. Background music was silly.
No way, lovely music! :)
Music may be unnecessary and unwelcome for those who perhaps are accustomed to listening to straight lectures; I would say that that is a fractional minority of TH-cam viewers. I know of one video that has two versions, one with and one without music, in order to facilitate the understanding of the content. It is "The Kardashev Scale by Isaac Arthur. All his other videos have music, and they contain a range of scientific and engineering concepts that are narrated through at quite a brisk pace.
According to those who want to dismiss Creationist criticisms of Evolution with the fallacy: "Anyone who is not a scientist is not allowed to pass their opinion against Evolution", I have this to say.
Firstly, if YOU are not a scientist yourself, then on what grounds do you claim that Evolution is 'true;? Because you've been told it's true... by a teacher... in a book... from Mr Dawkins, perhaps?
No? Well then, maybe it's because you think you're smarter than a Creationist and have reason, logic and intelligence on your side?
Really? Well then, I issue this challenge: If you cannot explain the theory of Evolution in any coherent argument without using the word "evolve" or any synonym of that word, or by parroting Darwin or Dawkins, then YOU don't understand the theory. Can you explain the conditions and mechanisms by which DNA emerged; and is able to replicate? Can you even account for the conditions which existed on Earth prior to the formation of life without a whole series of suppositions and assumptions - which DON'T necessarily stand up to reason, but are themselves just a bunch of inferences based on cosmological suppositions and theories to begin with. In the absence of any ability to make a coherent explanation for holding with Evolution Theory, then we can only say that those who do agree with that self-same theory are only relying on personal preferment and deferment to popular opinion and authority - the very criticisms Evolutionists use against Creationists for their faith in a supernatural Intelligent Being.
Oh... and DON'T be a fucking lazy arsehole and tell me to "Go research Evolution for yourself" or "Check out this website".
Excellent job of calling out atheistic hypocrisy. Thank you.
we can't explain how life started but yeah i can give you a fairly simple explanation of evolutionary theory. essentially as conditions on earth change, some species will die off and others will adapt to the change in conditions, the one's that adapt to the change have a higher chance of passing on their genes as well as passing on the adaptation.
You're not a scientist and you just passed your opinion against Evolution. So what's the problem?
Are you saying that unless a person develops the theory fully formed on their own without any outside influence, it is not valid? So, teaching, to your way of thinking, and learning are a valueless activities (unless you agree with and condone them).
Hello, Inquisition!
Good points. Well said!
Evolution makes an effort to show by evidence and example. Creationists simply assume. No evidence save old books.
It's not that complicated. Random mutations are the key. An example can be seen in embryonic development. I think folks make all this more difficult than necessary.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Cor. 4:3-4)
I think it's very easy to see God in all of this world...isbut yet the God , we created in our minds from the Bible persay. we've got fragments of a distorted God. God is in the stories of every human being.. can you slow down and listen to their stories... But some people can't handle the truth so they live unconscious the other generation call them zombies. You just got to come alive 😁🤣
But "if".
Amen
One of my favorite interchanges between Lewis and evolutionism (blind and undirected natural selection) is this one.
"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creations, is incredible." - Dr. D. M. S. Watson, Prof. of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy.
In direct response, Lewis writes in his 1944 essay "Is Theology Poetry?"
"Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on a positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"
+Will Honeycutt
I sort of agree with Lewis on this one... that is, that in his days it was still a pretty unknowns develloping theory. (But those days have long gone by now.)
Yet it always sounds so strange when people 'critize' people on doing fundamental research and trying to come up with explanatory models (in the sense that they need to be able to make predictions and falsafy them); but they find it perfectly acceptable to come up with the 'mysterious thing that can somehow do the things we don't understand'.
And now evolution is being abandoned. Thanks to modern technology. Which is why they're starting to push transpermia. Silly anti theists
@@PGBurgess I've personally not seen any evidence whatsoever that supports the evolution theory more today than back then, in fact to the contrary! Much more evidence has piled up, relegating this theory to the dustbin of history. We will look back on this in the history books with great disbelief, it's one of the biggest hoaxes of all time
Visit Ligonier Ministries, and get a hold of R.C. Sproul's series "The Psychology of Atheism" .
It's interesting that you claim that the majority of DNA in humans "is still junk." How do you know this? We have yet to study the majority of non-coding DNA. You are providing a perfect demonstration of how Darwinian ideology has damaged science. You make sweeping claims about the lack of functionality of the majority of DNA based on Darwinian assumptions rather than actual research. What we DO know is that we are finding new functions for the supposedly functionless DNA all the time.
People appear to be saying that C.S Lewis' opinion doesn't matter. 1: don't be such an elitist muppet, 2: He's a well educated philosopher and rational human being. He knows his stuff.
If one takes the view that a person's opinion doesn't matter because his discipline is in not a certain field, then 1/ one could say that basically no one opinion's matters 2/ even if one is an expert in a field, that doesn't automatically make the expert infallible; he may just have learned by rote, without testing what he was taught. There's a cartoon with a TV newscaster interviewing a 'professor.' "Professor, is it true that you don't want creationism taught in schools because it's brainwashing?" "Yes, that's why we only teach evolution."
CS Lewis had no serious education in philosophy. He was a platonist foofball.
No, in fact, his arguments were consistently naive, and even childlike.
Your right Joseph. If he supported his challenger he would ne right to them who make these comments and they don't want it to be true but see that Lewis is right and despise his facts. While they see this too as the greater possibility than any and they fear the truth. We all have a set of rules we all live by and this too supports our facts of GOD.
@@malchir4036 "CS Lewis had no serious education in philosophy. He was a platonist foofball."
One does not need education in philosophy if one has a smidgen of common sense, dummy.
Nice try, though, do spin again.
I encourage people to read the Dawkins' quote for themselves rather than your repeated efforts to reinterpret it. Dawkins made a sweeping claim that non-coding DNA is either parasitic or "at best" "useless." Sounds like junk to me. But I understand why Darwinists are finally trying to backtrack on their earlier rhetoric about junk DNA.
Very well done video! Thank you. C.S. Lewis has always been one of my favorite authors and this is a reminder of why.
What material attributes can be assigned to consciousness? Does it have mass? Is it subject to the laws of gravity? How to you measure ideas - like good and evil, right and wrong? Are these subject physical measurement? If not, how are they subject to material observations? If not - how does evolution account for them? If evolutionary theory reduces them to mere survival advantage - what survival advantage does theism supply -why does it still persist? I posit materialism simply cannot account for itself via materialism. This is a good video.
59arkady genius comment
59arkady technically yes, it’s communicated by neurons, neural messages are electric charges and move at the speed of light, which, contained in e=mc^2, cannot he exceeded without gaining mass and slowing down.
You can add LOVE to your list.
Even to call these attributes or actions of chemicals, that still fails to say what these are as things in and of themselves, and leaves no link drawn between these and matter.
No material explanation explains why we can know anything, the very fact in which resides a mind noone can deny ordered all things.
Conciousness as far as we can see is the product of the neural network that is our brain. Conciousness is an abstract concept alongside right or wrong. They don't take one place up, rather they are the result of stimuli + processing, like how a computer reads 0s and 1s, the words, numbers ect. aren't physically there, just like how ideas aren't in our brain.
Theism as far as we can see has a community advantage, it's something that binds us together, which would've been advantageous in the wild, and it still persists because people share and join these communities.
Thanks for uploading. Very interesting. What a shame that the overpowering music often makes it difficult to listen to the words. The music does not enhance the words but fights with them. Everywhere one goes there is background music looming forward to overtake.
Absolutely!!! The music was quite distracting. I am no sure for what purpose was it included ?
When one has a vested interest in people believing something, if it be for money, power, control etc.. It's no longer science. One reason competing world views are important. You see Darwinism give rise to Scientism, which is not based on science but the worship of science! When you limit science to dogmatic status it becomes a religion unto its self. No more are you allowed to question the scientist because they are elevated to God like status to be worshiped.
Fortunately, what you describe is not the current state of things. Science can be questioned; it is constantly being revised in light of new evidence. If the process seems slow or cumbersome, you'll have to forgive the experts for insisting on rigorous proof in a world where false claims abound.
Yes, like climate change is now a religion.
@@MrGreycoat
Science has saved no lives. There's a 1:1 ratio of birth to death as far as we observe natural biology. Science has managed to make geometric improvements in our quantity, quality, and ability of life, but ultimately only manages to delay the inevitable.
Lewis' thoughtful study of evolution is a helpful guide in our need to approach these topics intelligently. "Just as Lewis rejected a Darwinian explanation for the human mind because it undermined the validity of reason, he rejected a Darwinian account of morality because it undercut the authority of morality by attributing it to an amoral process."
C.SLewis saw that pride comes for before the fall, I guess like Richard Dawkins says I am stupid and ignorant but what's more foolish believing I came from animals by blind evolution by accident. Psalms 14:1
"Whenever I encounter someone who tells me they believe in evolution, I first congratulate them for having such great faith."
-R.C. Sproul, American theologian
an anecdote that I believe the uploaded of this fine video I will appreciate. I was once chatting to an atheist the topic of skepticism was brought up I said something along the line of "I guess you could say I am skeptical of modern skepticism." the gentleman I was speaking to was awe struck that I could dare says such statement and said that it was fundamentally impossible. I did not continue on that topic because I felt that any further discussion might as well be in another language.
Their formal title is pseudoskeptics. They were organised to headkick christians all over the NET. They formed CSICOP a skeptical organisation. Read it as PSYCHOP. Fraudulent magician James Randi was their champion, others included Neil De Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan. Susan Blackmore. They were formed to push a materialist atheist mindset and failed dismally. Who paid for it all ? A billionaire in the Military Industrial complex. Randi was headquartered in the General Dynamics HQ. See Christopher Bollyn.
What makes me laugh, when somone says " this is my truth" . Very telling of what where people are at these days.
Actually, the term "intelligent design" as an alternative to unguided Darwinism goes back to the nineteenth century. But you are right that Lewis died before the contemporary resurgence of intelligent design in the biological sciences. That doesn't mean he didn't have views that intersect with the current debate. As for current scientific criticisms of contemporary Darwinism and its mechanisms, evolutionist James Shapiro at the University of Chicago provides a good example.
Awesome! and thank you for sharing this wonderful mans ideas and writings. The world is a better place because of him.
We have all been programmed to think that evolution is correct, by our education system. One day people will view evolutionary theory with as much amusement as we view the ancient Greek explanations of the world. I am absolutely convinced about intelligent design- as much as I know that Beethoven did not create his symphonies by randomly sprinkling notes over the stave.
We have not all simply been programmed - this implies some malignant intent by a global cabal of evil, corporate masters. Science is behind the theory of evolution. While there may be much to build on and correct over the coming decades and even centuries, much of the science is demonstrable. What makes you so 'absolutely convinced' about intelligent design? What and by whom have you been programmed with to believe so ardently in it? IN fact, the theory of evolution is the theory of intelligent development as one can see a progression of the development of abilities and forms which work best for humans. It makes sense, apart from being visible and provable by science. And no, Beethoven did not 'randomly sprinkle notes over the stave' as you put it; he was highly evolved musically and was also highly trained and experienced by the time he wrote his great works. His was a 'god given' talent, in common parlance, which is to say he enjoyed an exceptional natural gift as a few people do in all fields and was able to express that gift publicly and become known for it.
@@Zeupater
th-cam.com/video/phfaDMEMFaU/w-d-xo.html
I don't disagree that Evolution as a theory is, in its initial form and context, elegant and well-fitted to the studies and problems of its day. What must be pointed out is that elegance and ease of applicability are not validations of a theory's ffectiveness in providing explanations and, more importantly, _making predictions._ A theory that does not make reliable, verifiable predictions is not a useful tool in modelling and accounting for phenomena.
Also, when a theory cannot account for a phenomenon, it needs at least one of three operations; it needs to be revised, supplemented, or supplanted. Einstein supplemented, not replaced/displaced Newton, because Einstein's equations, while still valid, are entirely unnecessary to describe what happens on a pool table or a hockey rink.
Now Darwin made some predictions that were validated, and a couple key ones that were flatly contradicted by data: the content of the fossil record being the clearest; but also the procession of trait modification, which some wrongly believe was contradicted by Mendel, was actually troubled by 20th-century genetic theory.
The difficulty about evolution now, is that it has gone from being a theory seemingly supported by data from all sides, to being a theory that does less and less predicting and needs more and more revising and supplementing; in short, it has gone from being an appealing approach to a hot mess. And yet the ultimate option, supplanting, which Feynman in _The Character of Physical Law_ states can be a consequence of even one unaccountable phenomenon, is never on the table. This in the face of the fact that the Human Genome Project has, with forensic accuracy, correlated a single common ancestral pair for all _Homo Sapiens_ within our own species.
How can the product of random, undirected processes comprehend those processes? There needs to be some order to even conceive of disorder.
The movie doesn't misrepresent natural selection. You are right that selection is not random. But according to Darwinian theory the random variations provide the raw materials selection needs to build anything substantial.
From Scientific American: "If only one kidney is present, that kidney can adjust to filter as much as two kidneys would normally...This happens with no adverse effects, even over years." Despite being "overengineered" with kidney capacity (Scientific American's term), I haven't heard it claimed that having two kidneys is vestigial.
This is how I understand it. Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution. Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. Microevolution for example, shows within the dog genome there are both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e., microevolution). If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Now with Genetic Mutation, imagine that, within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation. Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic, therefore, has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information; they lose it. It is not, therefore, an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted, All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it. Now with Macroevolution Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.” The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence for macroevolution, and, in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation-vs.-evolution debate.
Good stuff...for rational thought!
You might want to look at a just released study that challenges the idea that the appendix is a vestigial organ. I'm not allowed to post the link in a comment, but one can access it via "Science Direct." Here is an extract from the abstract: "No correlation was found between appearance of an appendix and evolutionary changes in diet, fermentation strategy, coprophagia, social group size, activity pattern, cecal shape, or colonic separation mechanism."
Your edited "quote" conveniently excises Dawkins' statement defining the useless "surplus" DNA he is talking about as the "large fraction of the DNA [that] is never translated into protein." In other words, Dawkins defines DNA that doesn't code for proteins as useless or junk DNA. This refutes your previous claim that non-coding DNA wasn't considered junk DNA.
Lewis's argument from reason discussed in both part 1 and 2 of these videos is just as relevant as it ever was, which is one reason why one of the leading modern philosophers, Alvin Plantinga, has employed a version of it against Darwinian accounts of mind.
Science, being finite, is in no way in opposition to the infinite Spirit. For they will never meet, to oppose. The only opposition comes from the heart and mind of men opposed to God and his righteousness.
A big tick to John West and his team. The time has come to publicly challenge the paradigm of Darwinian Evolution.
I have explained several times that a VESTIGIAL ORGAN is one which has LOST ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION. It may have secondary roles, but that doesn't mean it isn't vestigial. Our tailbone is a vestige of the full tail our ancestors possessed. Similarly, the rudimentary hind limbs & pelvic girdle of whales are vestiges of the ones in their land-dwelling ancestors. The hind limbs have lost their primary function, which is walking.
For starters, I encourage ID guys to produce any positive evidence whatsoever for
(1) the existence of an intelligent designer(s)
(2) how & when he operates & his motives
(3) that his design principles are demonstrably similar to that of humans
This is essential before you can claim that such a designer is at work in nature.
All you're doing is throwing idiotic criticisms at evolution, but not presenting evidence for any alternative mechanism. Simply claiming "that's designed" won't cut it.
Great quote from a great mind!
The issue is not whether babies are "naturally occurring," but what is the nature of nature itself. Is nature explainable simply in terms of chance and necessity, or does it require intelligent causes. The natural processes you refer to require huge amounts of biological information encoded in DNA to build a human baby. Was that biological information produced by mindless processes or as the result of an intelligent cause?
We recognize man-made things as designed because we can recognize the effects of intelligence qua intelligence. BTW, it's Stephen Meyer, not Myer, and he deals with your objection in Chapter 17 in the subsection "The Human Factor." Have you actually read his book?
ID proponents have produced peer-review science journal articles as well, although it is certainly true that many journals exclude criticisms of neo-Darwinism or evidence of intelligent causes from even being considered, no matter what their quality. See "Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design" at the Discovery Institute website.
You should consider the idea's of others. Weigh them and decide for yourself. I know what I believe, but I have no opposition to others sharing their thoughts.
"Nobody equated non-coding DNA = junk DNA." Well, as I pointed out, Dawkins did in the quote we previously discussed. It seems to me that you are re-writing history. But readers can look at the Dawkins quote previously supplied and judge for themselves. As for transposons necessarily being "junk" DNA, people should Google transposons and junk DNA and they will find lots of recent articles suggesting that transposons are not junk. The realm of supposed "junk" keeps getting smaller by the week.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: There are 10 to the power 78 atoms in the universe? This is 10 with 78 zeros after it. Also science/mathematicians say that anything with odds above 10 to the power 40 to one makes it impossible. Roger Penrose an eminent mathematician wrote down some of the parameters for a universe that would hold life as we know it and calculated the possibility of Life forming by chance. It came to 10 to the power 123. Just a thought.
Even Carl Sagan "The cosmos are all that were, and will ever be, etc." noted that for life to evolve anywhere in the universe would be 1 in 10^5000 billion zeros (or something like that).
I got to watch this again.
This is a fantastic discussion
Is it a discussion?
Historically, the argument that certain organs are vestigial was used to refute the idea that they reflected purposeful design.But once one grants that so-called vestigial organs can perform important biological functions, that argument no longer holds water. Whatever functions the appendix may or may not perform in other species, the fact that it performs an important function in humans makes it quite consistent with the idea of design.
Gary, "DNA proves beyond reasonable doubt the evidence for evolution"
So you are suggesting, the infinitely complex, system of DNA & RNA, which is based only on order and system requirements, is an example of randomness and evolutionary process? Right, computers and programs just work because they have evolved, and do not need any coordination of parts and process.
David Mickelson This is how I understand it. Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution. Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. Microevolution for example, shows within the dog genome there are both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e., microevolution). If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Now with Genetic Mutation, imagine that, within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation. Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic, therefore, has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information; they lose it. It is not, therefore, an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted, All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it. Now with Macroevolution Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.” The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence for macroevolution, and, in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation-vs.-evolution debate.
You have no idea about modern computers - they are full of non functioning program debris and the next generation are being programmed by more and more by computers themselves with no designer in actual control.
The issue is whether intelligent causes leave empirical markers that allows one to distinguish intelligent causes from unguided material causes.
+Mark y - I find it amusing that you would use the fossil record, per se, to support your argument. The fossil record lacks any direct evidence of speciation. In fact, many argue that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by mass-extinctions - but no intermediaries. Indeed, it's one thing to suggest that the fossil record supports evolution. It does. It is entirely another thing to suggest that the fossil record supports speciation. It would not be stretching the truth to say that, at a minimum, the fossil record is steeped in ambiguity. However, don't take my word for it. Take the word of renowned scientist and atheist, Stephen J Gould, who wrote, inter alia, the fossil record is "...the trade secret of paleontology." It is the "...enigma of paleontological enigmas." It is devoid of Darwin's "finally graduated organic chain." You may turn out to be right, Mark. Perhaps, time will tell. However, as it stands today, direct evidence for speciation has not been found the fossil record...
I'm not sure of your point. If you don't care about Lewis, there is no need to watch the video (or read the book that it's based on). These videos were primarily designed for those who have an interest in Lewis's views on science and scientism, and secondarily, to highlight points raised by Lewis that may have continuing relevance. If you want something that focuses just on the science, I'd recommend various Illustra Media videos like "Metamorphosis" and "Darwin's Dilemma."
I find it interesting that an axiom I have concluded independently appears to have been thought of by C.S. Lewis before me.
Science is good at providing working models that explain natural phenomena, but has a complete inability to discern if the model is actually true, or just true for all questions that have been asked of it to date. As far as most of us are concerned the difference between true and true for now is trivial. Is it really trivial though?
e.g. What if the theory of subatomic particles is not completely true, and instead everything is actually energy fields? If we had come up with this theory before atomic structure perhaps we would have developed hover-cars, but at the expense of the micro computer (because micro computers would not be as obvious to a mind that thinks about fields rather than quantum particles). How different the world would be! Perhaps harnessing energy would have developed further and we would now have viable inter-planetary transport, now that computers had advanced enough to calculate the required trajectories to navigate the solar system. (i.e. the transport problem was easy, but computation is hard, the exact opposite to what we are experiencing).
Any successful theory casts a shadow under which other theories do not bloom, however successful they might have been.
Little off topic and out of my depth but it feels relatable. The same is true of game theory or the "metagame". Once a particularly successful strategy or style begins to take hold it snowballs and becomes (seemingly) impossible to combat. Everyone formulates strategies within the frame already dominant... until someone doesn't and provides either a wider or more descriptive/effective frame to operate under. At which point it circles back to everyone thinking the former frame was dumb to ever operate under in the first place, failing to recognize that their current frame depends upon the chassis developed by people experimenting without the luxury of any framework at all!
Some people say science says evolution is true, by way of using evidence science distances itself from evolution proving it false. It's like trying to climb a mountain walking backwards and a boulder pulling you down.
Richard Dawkins speaks a lot of scientism, which is basically philosophy disguised as "science". He has an incredible amount of blind faith in a "religion" that is astronomically impossible.
These are interesting programs. Does anyone know when the third of these will be uploaded?
Awesome stuff, CS Lewis was someone special
You claim that the appendix is vestigial in humans, yet recent researchers have found evidence that it performs an important function: "In 2007, Parker and his colleagues suggested that the appendix has an immunological role, acting as a 'safe house' for beneficial gut bacteria. These bacteria help train the immune system and can prevent diseases by outcompeting dangerous pathogenic bacteria-but there are times when the dangerous microbes gain the upper hand and overrun the gut."
Well said indeed! Brilliant!
You keep asserting that you know what the primary role of the appendix originally was. But the article we discussed earlier doesn't substantiate your claim. The authors of that article argue that the appendix was adaptive and "either has a positive fitness value or is closely associated with another character that does." That's why they are calling for a "new working hypothesis" that sees the appendix developing to serve as "a microbial safe-house" to protect mammals from certain pathogens.
Amazing, thought provoking video! Thanks for creating it.
No point in arguing with them. Darwinists are the best historical revisionists there is. When asked to respond to the findings of Encode 2.0, Richard Dawkins said, without blinking an eye, that it is exactly what one would expect if evolution is true. Darwinists constantly change their predictions after the fact and then claim that all Darwinian predictions are confirmed by the evidence.
The fact that there is something is proof of an observer , according to quantum physics. And a natural law that dictates the form of creatures would be a part of the fine tuning of the universe. And that life may be all over the universe in places with the same physical make up has earth. Guided form and a bigging of life is evidence for a mind of infinite potential.
It would be reasonable to call that mind God.
Quantum theory is not understood well enough to make the claim you are trying to make i think. Interesting idea though
The third one ("C.S. Lewis and Intelligent Design") will premiere on TH-cam in November to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Lewis's death.
Awsome video brother! thank you for sharing, C.S Lewis was such an inteligent man!
I think you've misread the article. The article says DARWIN thought the appendix was derived in this way. But the article shows that the appendix did not evolve in this manner in most other mammals. This finding raises doubts about whether there is any causal link between the small caecum size and the development of the appendix in humans. In the words of the authors, "this may be a coincidence." The authors think the appendix developed because it is adaptive, not because it is vestigial.
This is my problem with people asking "Do you believe" in evolution. As if evolution is a religion unto its self! Most people can't even define what evolutionary theory they do believe as many thoughts of the process has been thrown about like their facts. I even hear people stand on the mountain and yell "Evolutionary theory" is a fact. Its self contradicting in one sentence.
We can't even define what it is to be a species with any certainty yet. And to have Eugene Scout telling the world she has the right to close off any debate on it because she runs the show is fascist. You either either debate it an open forum and have it peer reviewed or get off you're activist Scientism soapbox and go back to work.
I never said anything about God or that I was religious!
This is what I mean. You assumed since I bring up valid arguments I'm a religious person or Christian. It's your very own bias and dogmatic religion of Scientism that made you conclude that as well or you wouldn't have brought it up. Just so you know, it's not a defense either for Darwinian evolution. You defend it using scientific evidence not Invective reasons. It makes your science look weaker then it is.
You have any evidence to back that up? Absolutely not or you would have sited them.
I'll give you a bone. Show me the phylum that goes from reptile to bird, or fish to mammal in the fossil records. It should be easy to find. Darwin even said it was just under the Cambrian read to be discovered. 150 years later and 2 more sites found nothing. You simply want to believe because you need it to be true and any other explanation is shut off. That's what this whole video is about.
Appearance of design without being designed is the most ridiculous argument that scientist can even make as well. You can reject anything or embrace anything using that argument as well. Besides no Darwinian evolutionist as ever explained to me why nature can have forethought and produce not just life but life that is balanced enough to not harm the existing ecosystem. You don't get random billions or tries to get it right either. You introduce the wrong species into nature you could kill the whole system.
You need to study gene expressions, developmental genes and genomics and how they work. Start with types phenom and genome.
Then tell me what predictions Darwinian theory should produce and why. Let's see if they come true. If they don't then your science is flawed.
MrGreycoat Yes we are here
MrGreycoat umm I think you got it backwards sonny, it takes faith the size of Mt. Everest to believe that inarticulate things could come together to create complex and beautiful life, even the amoeba is complex when looked at the parts that it requires to operate, how did natural selection create new life forms when it has been proven to reduce lifeforms, it cannot create new just killoff the weak, Darwin really did not have the slightest idea about the complexity of the cell, he lived in the 1800 where the cell if anything was considered, insignificant, if he knew then what we know now, I doubt there would of been a debate,
Claude Rains 🔞😂😂😂🙈🙈🙈🐔🐔🐑🐑🐷🐷🐷🤪🤪
You seem to be citing evidence you think favors common ancestry. But, as the video points out, Lewis's big objection was to the creative power of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations. Evidence for common ancestry does not necessarily provide evidence for the creative power of natural selection.
No you are supposed to use your reasoning power instead of blindly believing in people based on qualifications. The only thing that is evolving for sure is the theory of evolution itself - for that we have plenty of evidence.
Lewis did have some issues with evolution. But he came into his own at a time when the Theory was only just finally making itself fully accepted in science- and had yet to find its way into popular conception.
Admittedly Lewis walked in more academic circles- but it was hardly his field and there was still some resistance in theological circles- which were the ones he walked in.
In other words- picking on a dead guy who lived at a time when the Theory was only finally coming into its own, had yet to make the discoveries that dragged the public along with it and was still a problem for the field of the man being discussed is a tad unfair and a lot anachronistic.
Very well done. Thank you for sharing.
6:45 [Not done watching]:
Now there's a name to remember; Henri Bergson. Decades before Watson and Crick and the discovery of the exact mechanism of transmission of traits through genetic information, he identifies the problem of increasing complexity through a selectively exclusive mechanism, natural selection. How does a mechanism which selects individuals and their trait combinations, and eliminates others, produce increasing complexity and varegation? How does such a principle increase the organization and variety of life both within and across geni and species while discarding traits and trait combination information at every step?...?
My argument regarding evolution and or the Big Bang theory is how did any personality or feelings evolve with out personality/love ect. Where did good and evil enter in with out a creator or higher being? Without either we wouldn't have the other which supports a creator and his enemy.
You have questions like this because of fear. Humans don't argue their support for something they really don't believe in
I have never heard of anyone arguing in support Santa claus or any other fictional character.
That's because believing or disbelieving in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or The Tooth Fairy has no real-world consequences; there may be psychological or trivial social consequences, but these deal with our own reactions and perceptions to imaginary things, not with how we reason or structure and plan our lives.
There are real consequences to believing or not believing that there are 'oughts' (an objective moral law), that there are opportunities (to be wealthy, famous, fulfilled secure), that there are dangers and pleasures to pursue or avoid as we choose. And these awarenesses affect our imagination, our reason, our emotions, and our will, and do so continually and regularly across the procession of the clock and calendar. I don't know of (m)any children who spend all year thinking about being good for Santa or what the Easter Bunny will bring them next spring. That is the distinction between reality and fantasy as objective mental phenomena.
This series of videos was primarily designed for those who have an interest in Lewis's views on science and scientism, and secondarily, to highlight points raised by Lewis that may have continuing relevance. With regard to Lewis's view of evolution, Lewis did not have theological objections to common ancestry, but he had significant doubts about the power of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. And he was pretty favorable toward intelligent design, as part three of the series will show.
love this feed
What a strange video this is! If it’s setting out to tell us what Lewis’s views on evolution and natural selection actually were, then (I think - as far as my own knowledge goes) it does a good job. But it seems to go beyond that and try to argue that Lewis’s views on these subjects were right. If that’s the intention, then the makers need to do much more than simply look at writers, such as Bergson, who influenced Lewis; they need to look at present evolutionary theory and show that it’s wrong. And the video makes no attempt to do this. The makers seem to be implying: “Lewis was a great thinker; he thought evolution hadn’t happened; so evolution didn’t happen”.
Good video production, thanks! Having read several C.S. Lewis books, I'm not so sure he was very clear about his stance on evolution, particularly to the extent portrayed in this video... I must re-read some of his works to check out some of the claims that have been made.
The 'junk' DNA issue is very important, because Jerry Coyne considers the 'junk' to be a prediction of evolutionary theory, in his book 'why evolution is true'... but the so-called 'junk' is proving to have very important regulatory functions... and as the Neo-Darwinian 'prediction' is coming apart at the seams, one would consider that the Neo-Darwinian theory to have been falsified!!
Thank you! The video does have to compress things because it is only 23 minutes. But you will find more references (and a lot more detail about the nuances of Lewis's position) in The Magician's Twin book.
Rational falsification does not automatically, in the human mind, lead to rational rejection. Because of our many cognitive biases, we have a tendency to hold on to ideas until it is simply untenable or dangerous to retain them.
#Cognitivebias #normalcybias #notinventedhere #egodefense
He seems to mostly believe in it but also question certain aspects like natural selection.
He might have believed it when he was an atheist, but when he became a theist, then specifically a Christian? I don't think so and there's a video he did called The funeral of a great myth, where some parts of a book are being read, where he ripped evolution a new one.
As a Wyoming Espiscopalian from way back, Science reinforces my Faith. Darwin, a Christian, dared to go further than Genesis, while honoring it, too. So did Mrs. Darwin. Henrik Bergsen went further with Creative Evolution and the Life Force. Then George Lucas stepped up with The Force in Star Wars. Thanks, Guys!🙋🏼♀️
I often think how the multitude of Darwinian biologists will be seen in years to come, as intelligent design blossoms into THE explanation of the complexities of life
You missed my point. Evidence for common ancestry is not the same as evidence for Neo-Darwinism's mechanism of unguided natural selection acting on random mutations. Michael Behe's book Edge of Evolution makes this point clearly. By citing evidence of common ancestry you are not really engaging the objections raised by either Lewis or modern biologists to the limits of the creative power of natural selection.
When I was in High School, way back in the 1960's, evolution was taught AS A THEORY. And it was discussed as only one "theory" out of many.
During my college years, in the early 70's, my Biology "Prof" spent a full week discussing both evidence "For" and "Against" evolution.
Any teacher trying that today would loose his/her job!
Sadly, politics has corrupted even basic "Science" education all over our Nation.
In my experience, and I'm now close to 70 years of age, only a small fraction of truly "Educated" people see evolution or it's Handmaid, Darwinism as being "True" or a "Fact" of science.
The origin of Life on this planet shall forever remain a mystery to the very limited minds of puny men.
Anyone who really thinks that the biological information encoded in DNA can be explained by unguided material processes needs to grapple with the detailed analysis of Steve Meyer in his book Signature in the Cell (2009). Intelligent causes are an integral part of nature.
When I was little boy, I always rushed to fishmonger when he had a new catch. I have never found a fish with longs or legs. it's a silly and childish argument against evolution. Still nobody can explain why, in thousands of years of fishing, no water creature evolved in land creature or to overcome the fishing nets?
Because you were using nets to catch them perhaps?
Search for Mudskippers here on youtube
Sascha Hasebos in deed....Trust the child in you....Because it is mis-placed in science.... as we have been deceived
1. Demanding to see a fish spontaneously just become a land creature in one large leap isn't how evolution works. This is a strawman that creationists love to use, but it doesn't represent actual evolutionary processes and therefore is not a useful test.
2. Some fish actually are evolving to "overcome the fishing nets" because of selection pressure. Fishermen tend to take the largest fish, and in many cases regulations require fish below a certain size to be released. As a result, the average adult size of some species of commercially caught fish is dropping due to small fish being selected for because larger fish are kept and eaten while small ones are either not caught or are released.
There are fish that live on land, except they breath through their skin.
Like finding gold on a street.
I say this, everytime I find a channel worth to celebrate.
Much obliged for sharing this knowledge.
Gin,
Why does what C.S. Lewis thought about Darwin matter? Blind and unguided huh? Seems that he knew very little about Evolution to start with.
Jungle Jargon Wow I guess just saying so makes it so, you really convinced me with that one... except... Except that it's obvious that you don't actually know anything about how evolution works. Your comments here tell me that.
How about explaining to all the simpletons how evolution is guided?
TenderTrap86 who said anyone was a simpleton?
***** Did you even watch the video? It already addressed how natural selection is the antithesis of a guided process.
MrGreycoat I'm not a creationist. And, there are atheists who do not believe in Darwinism.
There must be a profound amount of frustration felt by the evolutionist. After hundreds of years of stacking considered favorable evidences(while dismissing the unfavorable) and dogmatically preaching evolution's supposed truths,the movement has accomplished little! Lewis boldly examined both sides,honestly. This is why thinking peoples appreciate his point of view with a higher regard, than that of an emotionally and religiously (atheism) motivated,Dr. Richard Dawkins. Thank you for this video!
I asked my cat what he thought of C.S. Lewis, he coughed up a hairball.
Just because someone can live normally when a diseased appendix is removed doesn't mean the appendix is vestigial, unless you want to claim that ten fingers and two kidneys are vestigial. People can live with only one kidney or with a finger cut off. That doesn't mean that two kidneys or fingers are vestigial.
CS Lewis was a smart guy and a decent writer, that doesn't make him knowledgeable regarding evolutionary theory as he wasn't a biologist.
Sorry, but I dont think one needs to be a biologist to raise questions against scientific theory. One just needs to know what he/she is talking about. And CS Lewis definitely had a lot of undeniable questions against natural selection as the means for evolution.
And scientists are smart people and decent writers. But that doesn't make them knowledgeable about things outside of the physical world or able to determine God doesn't exist. They aren't God.
Angel Stevenson of course he had a lot of questions, everyone has questions and everyone should ask them, but once they're answered you don't cover your ears and scream, "lalalalalaICANTHEARYOU"
DerickTherving luckily scientists (in terms of research, not in terms of personal opinions like say Dawkins or Krause) do not attempt to tackle ideas about things beyond the physical world, because they cant. Science is purely within the physical world.
Francis crick was also not a "biologist".
Lewis doubted human evolution and a purely naturalistic/materialist explanation for it, however, as a theory he was quite a believer
show me evidencece of a CHANGE OF KIND!!!!!!!
RETHINK YOUR BIAS
in deed!....Not one single bit of evidence showing this change when there should be billions of examples
What exactly is a "kind"? That's not a scientific term with a generally accepted definition. As such, if someone did show you, you'd probably just shift the goalposts by redefining the term to suit yourself.
If you want to address scientific concepts, you need to found any such discussion in scientific terms.
Theists complain and complain, but the established science of evolution continues to get stronger and stronger
These Intelligent Design (Creationists) are cherry picking Lewis' words on the subject. He believed in evolution, period. Just as some of the top scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller are theist evolutionists (check out their lectures on youtube). It's sad to see the ID people give a bad and confusing flavor to the debate.
I'd encourage you to watch the video. It doesn't claim that Lewis didn't believe in "evolution" (a word that has many different meanings). In particular, the video makes clear that Lewis didn't object to common ancestry, although he became more skeptical of it later in life with regard to humans. Lewis's real critique was of unguided evolution, i.e. the Darwinian idea that the history of life was not directed by a mind.
He did believe in evolution - but he also thought that scientism was untenable, even dangerous. In "That Hideous Strength" he addressed the idea of scientism as danger. I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis' work. My observation is he would have fit neatly into the ID camp. Many of those people also believe in aspects of evolution - but find it insufficient. Lewis was comfortable with the biology - rather questioned the possibility that unguided processed could account for things like reason, sense of beauty, the moral sense -including the contradiction of the idea that good, therefore, God, could exist in a world where evil is evident. The video seems to address the full range of his ideas on this issue relatively well.
ID has nothing to do with creationism. It's simply an honest assessment of observational science that the church jumped on because it wasn't evolution.
+Peter Gullerud Well for one Lewis believed in "Guided Evolution" which means there was a mind behind it. He stated that many times over. As he noticed the words Random, Change, Unguided, plus Time are not physical forces found in nature. they don't cause anything to happen. It needs an outside force acting on it. So they are words to describe it's possible. This is Lewis view on evolution, not Neo Darwinian. As he noticed with Darwin claim the affect would be greater then it's cause. Which breaks all the rules in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Reason and Logic.
This is the reason Anthony Flew changed his position. The evidence from modern day biology to him was the final evidence he needed. That you have some sort of outside agency, creator or God behind it all. Which then the dogma of the Neo Darwinist said Flew was no longer an intellectual that should be taken serious. Yea that sounds of "Cherry Picking" bigots!
+Peter Gullerud Who cares anyways what his views are! to me only my views matter!
Why the added slides in the beginning? Certainly, they're not part of the film.
Richard Dawkins the god delusion, now I would state Richard Dawkins the man with the Strong Delusion! (Romans 1:22 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,) equals Richard Dawkins! Every time a Christian speak to Mr. Dawkins a demon runs behind him and muffles the sound by covering his ears followed by whispering a lie into his ear.
I loved that book....
Until I "evolved" a brain....
Poor Richard....
I'll pray for him.
Yes Rupert Sheldrake to the rescue. Science Delusion.
Mark Ford. Yeah, it’s true, you’re ignorant, stupid or insane.
One of the great pillars in Christian thought. His legacy continues thank God. Adolf Schlatter is one such man.
You are right that only a fraction of the genome has known functions. That's because the vast majority of the genome is still to be studied. What's clear is that the parts of non-coding DNA that ARE being studied are yielded lots of evidence of function. As I previously pointed out, it's revealing that you insist that the vast majority of DNA are non-functional even though we haven't studied it yet. That's not science; that's ideology.
This seems to be evolutionary speculation. The fact that appendix-like structures may fulfill different functions (and are different sizes) in different species does not prove that any of them are vestigial forms of previous structures. Perhaps these appendix-like structures were designed to fulfill different functions in different species. It is not necessary at all to invoke the idea of vestigial organs to explain them.
About 20minutes into the documentary West states,
"DNA doesn_t code for protein" I found this very interesting from a Bibli ally Principled point of view
Very well put together and simplified to layman's understanding.
Kathy@CompassOfTruth
I encourage people to read the article for themselves and then they can evaluate whether your claims are persuasive.
Lewis didn't know Darwin's natural selection is only one among many mechanisms that drive evolution. Evolutionary theory has moved far beyond Darwin. Lewis had no idea of genomics 70 years ago. However, comparative genomics provides one of the strongest evidence for common ancestry. This is not my opinion, but a fact shown by research. The nested hierarchies we get from genomics matches those obtained by comparative anatomy. The time of divergence between species matches the fossil record.
Amazing that youtube won't display the likes vs dislikes