Tag Archives: Evolution

Darwinists are horrified

See:

Click Here

Article reads: Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.

The national herd

See:

Click Here

Article reads: It is eugenics, the belief that society’s fate rested on its ability to breed more of the strong and fewer of the weak. So-called positive eugenics meant encouraging those of greater intellectual ability and “moral worth” to have more children, while negative eugenics sought to urge, or even force, those deemed inferior to reproduce less often or not at all. The aim was to increase the overall quality of the national herd, multiplying the thoroughbreds and weeding out the runts.

Human body did not evolve by a Darwinian process

Even Provda gets this right:

Click Here

Artcile reads: Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.

What is needed is a Trinitarian vitalism, where the middle term is permitted a more complex expression with evolution.

Darwinism and the left

See:

Click Here

Article reads: Darwinism, along with other determinist theories of modernity, such as Marxism, dovetails neatly with this purely fideistic belief. Hence unquestioning belief in the Enlightenment has to presuppose similar faith in Darwinism, regardless of how much proof to the contrary is on offer. Far be it from me to denigrate unquestioning faith. However, persevering with it against all available evidence is hardly a sign of intelligence.

The Gyromodel, and a letter to Dr Andrulis

 Hi Dr Andrulis

 I am trying to understand your paper (http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/pdf), and I am running into difficulty.
 
First, I like the idea of gyre. It is a lot like the holon idea introduced by Arthur Koestler. I like the idea of oscillation around a singularity, as the gyre reaches to high and low energy states. I understand the second law of thermodynamics to be two-sided, meaning that the equivocation of “reprensentation” and “recognition” is the only way to foolishly return to something one-sided; that is, yes the 2nd law hides a metphysical singularity. 
 
But I don`t understand Figures 1 and 2. In fact, its is unclear how the philosophy of the gyremodel relates to the biochemistry (which I am not an expert). Moreover, one may describe the philosophy more generally before trying to integrate the model back into the biochemistry. One is led to a possible conclusion that your paper is another spoof that follows the style of Alan Sokal. But I want to show your theory more grace than that, if only because Lovelock`s Giai theory is probably correct, as well as a neo-vitalism, and panpsychism, all of which may be agreeable with the gyremodel.
 
I have my own Trinitarian vitalism, or theory, that I would like to reconnect to a chemical hierarchy and pattern of emergence, even by starting with the elementary particles. Mapping out this emergence in detail would convince a lot of non-believers. I thought just maybe that you have done this?
 
See some of my papers:
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Sincerely, Stephen P. Smith, author of Trinity: the scientific basis of vitalism and transcendentalism

Gyromodel: a neo-vitalism, almost Trinitarian

See:

http://truthdive.com/2012/01/27/Planets-water-proteins-and-DNA-are-alive.html

Article reads: The basic idea of Dr. Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects-particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells-as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center.

The singularity represents a space-holder for a middle-term, according to Trinitarian thinking!

The Marc Hauser disgrace

See:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165313/disgrace-marc-hauser?page=full

Article reads: Three years after the seizure of materials from Hauser’s lab, the Boston Globe leaked news of a secret investigating committee at Harvard that had found Hauser “solely responsible” for “eight counts of scientific misconduct.”

Landon finds a terrible judgment on science

See:

Click Here

Landon writes:  Wallace correctly saw that the brain seems to have evolved/enlarged, not soley as an adaptation, but in manner that created a potential, more than just a functionality. That is a strong hint that there is a directional component in its evolution. It is remarkable that that the whole of scientific biology cannot manage to assess this falsifying insight of Wallace over a century after his critique of Darwinism. It is a terrible judgment on science.

A letter to David Haury

Hi David,
 
Interesting article you have in:
 
 
When reflecting on the origin of truth, one discovers that this particular issue does not really belong to science. The topic is closer to philosophy, i.e., epistemology where Kant made his mark, but even this does not do the topic justice. According to intuitionist understanding, apparent truth springs from something more innate: a trust worthy awareness, of which knowing thy self becomes more fundamental. Or in other words, to win a trust that grounds us to broad reality, there must be a vetting process to puts our most tightly held beliefs to the test. Unfortunately, this vetting process is not traditional science, rather it is closer to a transcendental science as Edmund Husserl noted.
 
Putting the “scientific theory of evolution” to the test does NOT return Darwin`s theory of evolution, it returns something different as I explain in my paper:
 

Russ Aubrey on Hitchens

See:

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/letters/ci_19671097

Aubrey writes: There is little reason to wait for the sudden pop quiz. It’s time to stop being imprudent and accept what God and Christ provides all of us, or let nature keep us in malicious bondage and the chains of physical death. I say again, “Come and let us reason together.” The clock is ticking.