Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

If God played dice he wouldn’t cheat and i bet he would be fun to play with.

I think youre lying again because Im aware of NOOne outside of Dembski's crowd that makes believe theres an "Algorithm" involved. You certainly like to road-kill your ideas as if they have merit by themselves. If you can supply om research published on this then why havent you even mentioned it???


Since we usuaally credit Sumeria for writing thats kind of a " Captain Obvious" term
When you ask, I give you important verifiable real evidence and information, when I ask, you give me" poetic almost biblical" prattle with very little logic NO EVIDENCE ATTACHED. SEE why you have no credibility ??

When someone begins an issue about "proving something" (lets be mathematical about it), they usually start with givens and, through assumed and known properties, one arrives at a PROOF . In your case YOU OPEN UP WITH YOUR PROOF. (eg "we can see the existence of intelligence and that a designer had used an algorithm to do "whatever")

. You dont go through any steps at all, you start as if its already Proven an then run through and call tht bullshit word salad your "proof"

Maybe you fell off the melon truch recently but Many of us have not.

1. TO prove---EARTH AND LIFE HAS ARISEN by INTELLIGENT DESIGN

2. GIVEN---------That Earth and Life thereon has arisen by Intelligent Design through natural selection

3. THEREFORE IT IS PROVEN---That earth and life thereon has qrisen by intelligent design through the agent of natural selection.

Not much there to chew on.


Boiled all down, thats sorta what youve been pushing on my feeble old mind. I think you should sell the "Western Sea and the beautiful fields of Doggerlnd" to someone who i buying it.

"Mathematical about nature" would have ceased any further communication for me! LOL The only thing mathematical is the age, and nothing more.

You make a legitimate point. To provide information from scientific journals is the best way. There are few that allow paradigm shifting articles for publications. Fortunately there is still good work being self published. We are getting about as far as we can go using naturalism. Anything beyond pure naturalism is now considered a paradigm shift and in some places illegal. What’s interesting is the tactic of using the courts to suppress philosophies is a recent thing in the US and a lot of good science was being done before it was suppressed. And, there is no evidence that suppressing it makes science better.

My question is, “If, some form of ID ends up being a significant part of solving the unsolved problems in physics and biology how, will it ever be discussed in academia if it is illegal?”

ID can never be part of any science.

wheres the causation and wheres the paradigm shift (A quite overused word when all you wish to decribe is macroevolution)

When you want a publication to reconsider one of the main premises of there philosophical view it is a paradigm shift. (Macroevolution appears to require intelligent input of new information). The. Cause is we need a mechanism to predict the future information needs to tie the multiple systems that must evolve at once while creating new systems for completely new purposes..

Pontificating again, I see. You have no business making statements from authority, because you possess no authority on this topic (and probably not on any other, either) from the depths of your ignorance.

How do you know that "god" is a he?

appears to whom?

I would imagine that if youd ask as many PhD evolutionary biologists as you could find , youd probably get about a 98% response that they can see no evidence that supports what you just asserted. The reason I didnt guess it was 100%, is that there are always several fellas and ladies out there whose religion is th center of their lives and would therefore abandon their own research experiences.

It may be a paradigm shift if they decide to print it. Anyway, philosophy trails actual discovery by varying degrees of lapsed time

I’d guess lower than 98%. Some understand all new information is thought up or comes from a system that was thought up. No religion needed to understand information technology. God is a person similar to us. You don’t need religion to understand people just information so you can learn to understand them.

It’s a paradigm shift when the elite begin to understand it.

the "lites" hqd manufactured the term. First time I heard it was william Buckley and John Kennedy.
AN OVERUSED TERM loss its maning after a while.

LIKE "DOUBLING DOWN" , its become a stupid mushy term that has lost its meaning.
Theres a coupla A2Krs who represent creative writing so well. Edgar Blythe, Joe Nation, Blatham, and a story writer who also is a great read,(but whose name I forget) I think its Endymion (not ure)
Ive never caught them overusing words and phrases and they use analogies and other means of communicating. Youve taken the total air out of "paradigm shift" and "algorithms" . That, to me, means youve lost the ay to explain your views so you lean on mushy mantras.

If you call macro evolution a paradigm shift, then I say you dont understand the concept of "P shift" or "macro volution"

Well i am with leadfoot and a majority of the population. Creation of “matter and the Higgs field”, “life itself and macroevolution” requires intelligence because even if evolution is an autonomous system to much is happening when major changes bring in new purposes in life forms like multicelled organisms, speciation, sexual reproduction, sight, flight, etc. . . I don’t believe that because I don’t u nderstand biology or physics well enough, I believe because the creation of and the change in the intertwined systems that must happen simultaneously is to great for randomly introduced information. I’ve written computer programs. Iv’e modified computer programs. They take intelligence. I was raised on and operated a large grain and livestock farm. I used computer controlled systems to operate equipment as I managed the living systems in natural grain and livestock systems. All automated systems that follow rules are algorithms. And, life and natural evolution follows very precise and complex sets of rules precisely for the purpose of sustaining life in a systematic way in an ecosystem on this planet for (what appears to be) the purpose of giving us a way to experience life to learn create new things because no other organism seems to be learning from it and create new things.

We have been discussing this topic for some time and it comes down to this, “If God existed and still exists how come we can’t easily see how He changes the universe?” How come we can’t see Him manipulating matter?

When I was trying to understand the harmonics of the energy fields that I was setting up in the fields of corn I was growing by changing the frequencies in the soil by adding fertilizer I decided to develope in myself an understanding electromagnetic fields and the quantum mechanics that caused them to happen. While doing that I asked the question about the evidence for God. I came to the conclusion that quarks are arranged in groups of four systematically on axises and if the axises are bent it changes the spin of the group. I believe that is where God’s and our thoughts enter the universe undetected at the centr of these groups of quarks in the center of atoms. His in any atom, ours in a small group in our brain. I am pretty sure I am right because all the unsolved problems in physics can be answered by this structure. But, who am I? I am a little man that asked the right question and then looked for the answer with an open mind.

Now I’ve got to write the papers for the Journals explaining how I can use the geometry that is embedded (in the structure of every atom and the Higgs bosons of the Higgs field) into the Shroedinger wave equation to replace the physical constants. Thanks for the challenging discussion. You want peer reviewed material and nobody else is going to do it.

Sometimes I believe we overthink things. Often, education allows you to do workarounds by understanding what it is e need to know. Not many people in ag research get into "subatomic particles" when interpreting soil frequencies. In fact, we have remote sensing techniques that ag consultants can fly aroun d over your fields and , by scanning, can give you the same paramters (sand/silt/clay ,pH, soil moisture etc)

I farm less than 150 acres and I thought I used every trick available to optimize my yields (including just giving in to my poorly drained areas where Ive planted Birdsfoot Trefoil instead of alfalfa. It works great and the root mass of the 4 year cycle of birdfoot, has improved the drainage so well in some areas that I have been able to plant crops that require better drainage.

PS, ya shoulda asked, I could have told you about electrical resistivity enner spaced to determine your soil properties

I wish you well in your endeavors and your first paper. NEVER ever just let ideas sit. Keep the communication level high an ask the questions, Im not sure where youd start with submitting a paper, maybe AGU would be the place to start, or submit your ideas to SANDIA LAb, they often create "scientist-in-residence" temp staff positions for ideas that can generate new concepts. and they have some of the most astounding detection gizmos at hand.

Science isn't the only way to view the world. But it's the only way to construct a scientific theory.

If the Theory you come up with only meets the rules of Brian, then it's a Briantific Theory, not a Scientific Theory.

The problem with viewing science purely naturalistically is, if it isn’t purely naturalistic you eliminated the answer to a bunch of tough questions.

Here is an example.

Instead of asking, “how did gravity form hydrogen and helium from empty space?” (Which is impossible because matter has to exist before gravity can exist.)

Ask,”did someone take empty space, quanticize it, entangle it into the Higgs bosons that form the Higgs field that we observe in the double slot experiment, causes the measurement problem dark matter, etc. . ?”

And follow up with,”is the space inside an atom entangled also and, can that entanglement explain anti matter, dark energy, neutrinos, the constants etc. . .

Because if this matrix can explain these things, why eliminate the only correct answer for the cause of all that order by quanticizing and entangling the entire universe in a Quantum Creation Event. An event Alan Guth hypothesized but said he will spend his life proving as wrong because it goes against his naturalistic view of the universe.

It is sad that the father of inflation theory has admitted that because of a philosophical bias, the only right answer for the structure of space that can explain all that unanswered phenomenon, is being thrown in the garbage.

Because naturalism is not the only way to construct a scientific theory. Especially if you want the right answer kept out of the garbage. “Naturalism only” isn’t a rule it is a choice.

Who or what put together this guiding intelligence and then before that and before that? Why does it think according to your specifications?