I concur with your well-written and logical essay on "gradualism" and "mechanical accidentalism." An example to corroborate your article: turns out that eyes and complex sockets came about in a relatively short period of millions of years. The response of The Sciences... "we're sticking with Evolution because it's the best theory we've got." Therefore, the Scientific logic of "gradualism" is faulty. And as your article inclines: in some educational institutions, teaching Evolution is enforced by law. IE: 'teach it as truth, or else.'
"The consensus among 99% of scientists is that..." My consensus is that they've shot themselves in the foot with that one too.
Aye. The evolution of the eye is still unsettled despite the insistence of fanatics like Neil deGrasse Tyson that it is. The trouble of irreducible complexity brought up by Michael Behe has especial force when it comes to the eye because it's not just an eyeball that requires consideration, but a complete visual apparatus, including cognition.
The same Tyson from Vox: “Based on the results of the investigation, Dr. Tyson remains an employee and director of the Hayden Planetarium,” the museum said in a statement to the New York Times. “Because this is a confidential personnel matter, there will be no further statements by the museum.”
I guess Tyson must be special, in some way.
Behe has a point. Ok, the majority of The Sciences may not believe in Intelligent Design, but there's no admitting that they do not know how. There's always the intergalactic seeding idea... The Sciences should probably go with that then, but of course, how did the superior intellectual intelligences arise...
Probably safer they go with Intelligent Design. They could always change their ideas later. Lol, not my quandary.
I see a connection between our current descent into nihilism and barbarism and this 'mechanical accidentalism' you describe. Your ingenious turn of phrase epitomizes the depths of the spiritual catastrophe and its deadly consequences that we're living through. It sums up the implicit mental frame that our rootless, degenerate civilization instils in us from childhood: that life is meaningless and random, and everything we think and feel is an illusion. Such a depressing vision of life, then, should help illustrate why society is pervaded by such a profound sense of hopelessness, misery, and anger; why we're so easily deceived, manipulated, and turned against each other; and why we so eagerly entrust our personal health and safety to the care of elites who are trying to kill us.
I concur with your well-written and logical essay on "gradualism" and "mechanical accidentalism." An example to corroborate your article: turns out that eyes and complex sockets came about in a relatively short period of millions of years. The response of The Sciences... "we're sticking with Evolution because it's the best theory we've got." Therefore, the Scientific logic of "gradualism" is faulty. And as your article inclines: in some educational institutions, teaching Evolution is enforced by law. IE: 'teach it as truth, or else.'
"The consensus among 99% of scientists is that..." My consensus is that they've shot themselves in the foot with that one too.
Aye. The evolution of the eye is still unsettled despite the insistence of fanatics like Neil deGrasse Tyson that it is. The trouble of irreducible complexity brought up by Michael Behe has especial force when it comes to the eye because it's not just an eyeball that requires consideration, but a complete visual apparatus, including cognition.
The same Tyson from Vox: “Based on the results of the investigation, Dr. Tyson remains an employee and director of the Hayden Planetarium,” the museum said in a statement to the New York Times. “Because this is a confidential personnel matter, there will be no further statements by the museum.”
I guess Tyson must be special, in some way.
Behe has a point. Ok, the majority of The Sciences may not believe in Intelligent Design, but there's no admitting that they do not know how. There's always the intergalactic seeding idea... The Sciences should probably go with that then, but of course, how did the superior intellectual intelligences arise...
Probably safer they go with Intelligent Design. They could always change their ideas later. Lol, not my quandary.
I see a connection between our current descent into nihilism and barbarism and this 'mechanical accidentalism' you describe. Your ingenious turn of phrase epitomizes the depths of the spiritual catastrophe and its deadly consequences that we're living through. It sums up the implicit mental frame that our rootless, degenerate civilization instils in us from childhood: that life is meaningless and random, and everything we think and feel is an illusion. Such a depressing vision of life, then, should help illustrate why society is pervaded by such a profound sense of hopelessness, misery, and anger; why we're so easily deceived, manipulated, and turned against each other; and why we so eagerly entrust our personal health and safety to the care of elites who are trying to kill us.
Very well put, a concise reading of the modern world.
Thanks, Allen.
Thanks for your comment, Harry. Agreed. The moral consequences of Darwinistic atheism are painfully destructive.