Comment on The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos? by Gene Fortner.
Bill,
A scientist starts with data, the proposes a hypothesis to explain that data. A creation scientists uses the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible.
So far the Bible is way ahead of secular scientist attempts to explain the universe.
Neo-Darwinism is dead.
Here are some of the attemps to replace it.
They too will fail
In Search of “Evolution 3.0”
There are eight contenders for the next incarnation of the theory of evolution.
I have heard and read that the theory of evolution is a “theory in crisis.” But the research path I’ve been on has led me to flip-flop on that notion depending on what I was reading at the time. However, very recently, I think I have come to settle on the “theory in crisis” side of the fence. It has always been my contention that, by far, the best refutations against the theory come from evolutionists themselves. By “best” I mean ones likely to be taken seriously by those who adhere to the tenets of evolutionary theory. This is because no matter how scientifically sound an argument is, if it comes from a source with the slightest religious or Intelligent Design affiliation, it is automatically discredited on that basis.
That being said, the ongoing search for the theory’s replacement, in my opinion, offers some of the most powerful evidence against the theory. It appears that the recent developments in microbiology and genetics have been at work silently in the background (i.e. with limited public exposure). I’ve just read through Stephen Meyer’s refutation of evolution in Darwin’s Doubt. It is very compelling scientific evidence. The result of this silent work is now manifesting itself in a search for a replacement for neo-Darwinian evolution.
The surfacing theories that I am currently aware of are:
1. Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP)
2. Self-organization
3. Natural Genetic Engineering
4. Neo-Lamarckism
5. Symbiogenesis
6. Evolutionary Developmental Biology
7. Neutral Evolution
8. Facilitated Variation
The fact that all of these new theories are surfacing
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i11f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i12f.htm
.
Gene Fortner Also Commented
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@Pauluc:
Paul,
What you need to do to refute Dominic Stratham’s hypothesis is to come up with a hypothesis that matches the data better than his.
His hypothesis matches the data much better than current just so stories and it makes sense.
Your attempt to refute his hypothesis was a lazy man’s attempt at an apopeal to authority.
FYI,
Engineers are much harder to fool because they design things.
Academia only has to come up with a story that matches the current dogma’s premise.
PS: A few hundred years ago, the consensus was against Galileo.
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@george:
George,
FYI
Migration of Life after the Flood Dominic Stratham
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@Arthur K:
Arthur,
FYI
http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html
Recent Comments by Gene Fortner
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
yes
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”
Bill,
Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.
BTW,
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Thanks Sean
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Ethan,
IMHO,
No statement was necessary.
In fact I consider it thoughtless.
FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
Bill,
Sin is transgression of the law.
Where does it say being born is a sin?
