"EXPELLED": Jewish Intellectuals Challenge Tyranny of Darwinism

[M.D. Rawlings]

Christopher A. Ferrara
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New Jersey


Excerpt:

The Problems with Evolutionary Cosmology​

CF: Let’s talk about evolutionary cosmology. In the book you talk about how at first the Big Bang was greeted with great enthusiasm by the scientific community, until they figured out—just a moment!—this means the universe began, which suggests causation for the universe. What happened with that?

DB: They got rid of that real quick. God forbid there should be a beginning to the universe as Genesis might suggest…. You know, the first generation of cosmologists who looked at this sort of said: My God, we’ve seen this story before in Bible class when we were six. How very odd that we should be seeing it all over again.

Of course, the smarter cosmologists figured that’s just not going to do. Where would we cosmologists be if we had to cede authority to someone else?... So they immediately enlisted the philosophers, and told them: “We’ve got a job for you philosophers…. Let’s show how a universe finite in temporal extent did not really have a beginning.” At least two dozen philosophers who have been working just on that say it’s not a particularly challenging Jesuitical problem for anybody who has a minimum degree of mathematics, because it’s always possible to say: beginning, beginning, what does that mean? Is this space open? Is this space closed? Maybe there’s a finite and temporal extent as far as we can see, but if we get into it, it converges, and the convergences—all sorts of elaborate and logical postures and hypotheses are offered. And by now the subject is so thickly covered in a cloud of confusion that it resembles me during allergy season.​

LINK

 

[konradv]

Christopher A. Ferrara
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New Jersey


Excerpt:

The Problems with Evolutionary Cosmology​

CF: Let’s talk about evolutionary cosmology. In the book you talk about how at first the Big Bang was greeted with great enthusiasm by the scientific community, until they figured out—just a moment!—this means the universe began, which suggests causation for the universe. What happened with that?

DB: They got rid of that real quick. God forbid there should be a beginning to the universe as Genesis might suggest…. You know, the first generation of cosmologists who looked at this sort of said: My God, we’ve seen this story before in Bible class when we were six. How very odd that we should be seeing it all over again.

Of course, the smarter cosmologists figured that’s just not going to do. Where would we cosmologists be if we had to cede authority to someone else?... So they immediately enlisted the philosophers, and told them: “We’ve got a job for you philosophers…. Let’s show how a universe finite in temporal extent did not really have a beginning.” At least two dozen philosophers who have been working just on that say it’s not a particularly challenging Jesuitical problem for anybody who has a minimum degree of mathematics, because it’s always possible to say: beginning, beginning, what does that mean? Is this space open? Is this space closed? Maybe there’s a finite and temporal extent as far as we can see, but if we get into it, it converges, and the convergences—all sorts of elaborate and logical postures and hypotheses are offered. And by now the subject is so thickly covered in a cloud of confusion that it resembles me during allergy season.​

LINK

The Big Bang and Darwinism are two different topics. If there's a "Jesuitical problem" going on, it's because the creationists/IDers keep trying to confuse the issue.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Big Bang and Darwinism are two different topics. If there's a "Jesuitical problem" going on, it's because the creationists/IDers keep trying to confuse the issue.

What Two Thumbs said: What?

These men are perfectly aware of the fact that the Big Bang Theory and evolutionary theory, in and of themselves, are two different things. They're talking about the general application of the evolutionary paradigm. LOL!

So goes the stupidity of evolutionists who don't even grasp the broader implications of their own theory.

 

[rdean]

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Sometimes things take longer.

Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families : Nature Genetics : Nature Publishing Group

 

[konradv]

The Big Bang and Darwinism are two different topics. If there's a "Jesuitical problem" going on, it's because the creationists/IDers keep trying to confuse the issue.

What Two Thumbs said: What?

These men are perfectly aware of the fact that the Big Bang Theory and evolutionary theory, in and of themselves, are two different things. They're talking about the general application of the evolutionary paradigm. LOL!

So goes the stupidity of evolutionists who don't even grasp the broader implications of their own theory.

Just because you say there's a broader implication, doesn't make it so. Most scientists don't apply the paradigm in the way they do, so OP's opinion is hardly authoritative.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Just because you say there's a broader implication, doesn't make it so. Most scientists don't apply the paradigm in the way they do, so OP's opinion is hardly authoritative.

Because I say so?

Hardly authoritative?

Cosmology is . . .

1. The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe.
2. A specific theory or model of the origin and evolution of the universe.

Ferrara and Berlinski are not talking in generalities; they're talking about a specific paradigm in this instance. Today, the majority of scientists are materialists, atheists, necessarily holding to a metaphysical naturalism. That means they most certainly do hold to an evolutionary cosmological paradigm sans any design insofar as cosmological or biological origins are concerned. They specifically named people like Dawkins and Hawking.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense here, konradv.

 

[geauxtohell]

Christopher A. Ferrara
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New Jersey


Excerpt:

The Problems with Evolutionary Cosmology​

CF: Let’s talk about evolutionary cosmology. In the book you talk about how at first the Big Bang was greeted with great enthusiasm by the scientific community, until they figured out—just a moment!—this means the universe began, which suggests causation for the universe. What happened with that?

DB: They got rid of that real quick. God forbid there should be a beginning to the universe as Genesis might suggest…. You know, the first generation of cosmologists who looked at this sort of said: My God, we’ve seen this story before in Bible class when we were six. How very odd that we should be seeing it all over again.

Of course, the smarter cosmologists figured that’s just not going to do. Where would we cosmologists be if we had to cede authority to someone else?... So they immediately enlisted the philosophers, and told them: “We’ve got a job for you philosophers…. Let’s show how a universe finite in temporal extent did not really have a beginning.” At least two dozen philosophers who have been working just on that say it’s not a particularly challenging Jesuitical problem for anybody who has a minimum degree of mathematics, because it’s always possible to say: beginning, beginning, what does that mean? Is this space open? Is this space closed? Maybe there’s a finite and temporal extent as far as we can see, but if we get into it, it converges, and the convergences—all sorts of elaborate and logical postures and hypotheses are offered. And by now the subject is so thickly covered in a cloud of confusion that it resembles me during allergy season.​

LINK

So now evolutionary theory encompasses the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis?

From the Biology classroom to the physics and astrology classroom!

You are succeeding where Einstein failed. Soon, evolution will be the unifying "theory of everything!"

Or, this is just another instance that displays that you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

BTW, thanks for tipping your creationism hand.

It's always good to know the CV of the Scientists you cite.

We know that Stein is not a scientist and had demonstrated just how dishonest he is about the issue of evolution in "Expelled". I am not a fan of Dawkins, but his edit job on that interview was virtually slanderous.

Let's see. Berlinski...

Shocking! He works for the Discovery Institute!

http://www.discovery.org/p/51

His PhD is also in Philosophy, though he did do some post-doc work in molecular biology and mathematics.

Wait a minute! Are you Berlinski?

Schroeder is a physicist who has devoted his career to trying to support the "young Earth" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

 

[geauxtohell]

Just because you say there's a broader implication, doesn't make it so. Most scientists don't apply the paradigm in the way they do, so OP's opinion is hardly authoritative.

Because I say so?

Hardly authoritative?

Cosmology is . . .

1. The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe.
2. A specific theory or model of the origin and evolution of the universe.

And that pertains to Darwin because......................?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah

 

[geauxtohell]

Blah blah blah blah blah

You decided to take your ball and go home, huh?

I don't blame you.

Everyone sees through your act.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah

You decided to take your ball and go home, huh?

I don't blame you.

Everyone sees through your act.

Oh, you mean you were finally about to defend abiogenesis and the metaphysics of your common ancestry with real science against the constructs of ID?

Fat chance.

 

[geauxtohell]

You decided to take your ball and go home, huh?

I don't blame you.

Everyone sees through your act.

Oh, you mean you were finally about to defend abiogenesis and the metaphysics of your common ancestry with real science against the constructs of ID?

Fat chance.

Again: Show me how I.D. is falsifiable. A simple question that you keep running from. I don't need to hide behind overly verbose posts, emoticons, or insisting I am right to show that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

But by all means, since you can't answer a simple question, bring on more smileys and then, when you have your esteem back, proceed to tell us how stupid we are for not "getting it".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Again: Show me how I.D. is falsifiable. A simple question that you keep running from. I don't need to hide behind overly verbose posts, emoticons, or insisting I am right to show that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

But by all means, since you can't answer a simple question, bring on more smileys and then, when you have your esteem back, proceed to tell us how stupid we are for not "getting it".

You've been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research.

Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority.

Your response is to simply repeat the same question over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. Neither one of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall.

And then on top of that, you go on to slam an obviously intentional use of slang. You're silly and as obtuse as a box of rocks.

So too-da-loo, loopy-doo!

 

[geauxtohell]

You've been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research.

Nice try. To my knowledge, you haven't even tried to address it.

If you have to repeat yourself, then indulge me.

Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority.

Damn right I am. I am not interested in metaphysics and I think your opinion on this matter is just that.

I am concerned with holding science to the rules in which it functions well under. That means keeping it within the realm of the natural world.

Your response is to simply repeat the same question over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. Neither one of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall.

Answer our questions and we'll stop asking them. Ignore them, and we will keep reminding you of your delinquency.

And then on top of that, you go on to slam an obviously intentional use of slang. You're silly and as obtuse as a box of rocks.

If you aren't being taking seriously, it's because you haven't acted like a serious commentator on this matter. You have yourself to blame for that.

So am I talking the the M.D. that is capable of putting a sentence together or the M.D. that relies on emoticons this time?