'How Darwin Destroyed Reason: Formal and final causes' A Lecture by Prof. Stephen Clark

[@treantbeca6823]

Why do you British people have all the fun topics in critical thinking, and we in the north America are stuck with guys like Richard Dawkins? Lol

[@worldpeace8299]

+Treant Beca Bad karma

[@treantbeca6823]

world peace Probably. lol

[@oladejiadelekan8062]

+Treant Beca and Bill Maher

[@kevin.afton_]

+Treant Beca American liberal filtering.

[@WizzRacing]

+Treant Beca Because Darwinism has become a religion unto itself. Just watch what happens on his birthday. It's like religious meeting with Dawkin as their Moses and Darwin the messiah. It's really strange they claim freedom from religion and how science set them free. Yet it has all the trappings of a cult.

[@timnixon4976]

I wonder if someone from Tyndale Philosophy could post Professor Clark's list of quotations (the quotations on the hand-out) on here, please?

[@Naytardo]

This guy gets it.

[@843292]

Interesting, the last person who commented was contesting the notion that we're made in the image of Yahweh. It is common for us to be limited to our own paradigms, but as I understand it we were not necessarily made in the physical image but the spiritual image or essence. Of the three members of the Holy Trinity, Jesus is the only person with a body. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are both spiritual. Jesus still has his body in heaven today complete with scars on his hands as our reminder of the price he paid for us. [Luke 24:39]

[@moses777exodus]

​Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: ​ A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

[@SamahAmber]

Interesting points, but they don't prove a creator exists. Also, assuming evolution is wrong, we have no idea what is the truth of our existence is. Simulation, God, we cannot know. Disproving evolution doesn’t prove something else.

[@Mrm1985100]

Wow. This was great.

[@garywalker447]

Your confirmation bias is showing.

[@Mrm1985100]

@@garywalker447 Hardly. I found it to be a really great lecture.

[@Mrm1985100]

@@garywalker447 He's brilliant here and what he says is profound and beautiful.

[@sam-lz6pi]

I admire Prof. Clark, but this was disappointingly rambling. It was not quite clear to me what exactly he was trying to put across.

[@garywalker447]

The lie of creationism cannot be asserted or defended with honesty.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Dumb Like Stick, aka Gary Walker, wrote, "The lie of creationism cannot be asserted or defended with honesty." Why would anyone in their right mind believe a rambling, low-information type like you, Dumb Like Stick? Dan

[@vheilshorn]

.....hopes Gary Walker.

[@Mrm1985100]

The entire cosmos teaches us there is a creator and this is understood through basic intuition.

[@garywalker447]

@@Mrm1985100 Nope. Nothing about the cosmos implies a "creator".

[@Mrm1985100]

@@garywalker447 You're spiritually calloused and hardened.

[@worldpeace8299]

My "first entry" into religion was the clear assumption at the heart of the spiritual message that we have fundamentally misunderstood who and what we are. The obvious, that I was living with my own, conditioned, interpretation, became clear to me. And yes, this gave me some hope. But I did not proceed to adopt yet another belief system, but found something to ponder and contemplate. My journey since then has been more a matter of doubt than belief. And since then I have become more and more aware of the inevitability of belief in one form or another in the "evolution" of the human species.

[@kensmith8152]

I would like him to discuss the philosophy of the bad hair day! Lol

[@tracik1277]

Ken Smith there are some serious bad hair days going on both on stage and in the audience.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

Evolution existed as an idea before Darwin, he merely discovered its most important mechanisms, mutation and natural selection. if Darwin hadn't made these discoveries, someone else would have. Darwin is considered on of the most brilliant scientists who ever lived. Creationism is not a science at all, it is merely a religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as science.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

mehamed k If Darwin hadn't discovered the mechanics of evolution, someone else would have, so it is pointless to attack him personally. Darwin wasn't an atheist and most religious believers accept evolution, which makes no religious claims one way or another-- no scientific explanation does. Your jihad against evolution is as irrational as any other holy war.

[@martinlag1]

mehamed k It's nice to see that you agree with some of the basic concepts of evolution. It really is very obvious isn't it. Did you know that Darwin did not mention 'Darwin's" finches in his book at all. He was embarrassed because of his poor scientific method. He didn't bother to label their individual islands on the data because he assumed they were each different species and it could be worked out later. He overlooked their significance totally because he assumed creationist ''species boundaries'' so early in the journey. He was an amateur. That soon changed. True, he saw variation in all populations, not only finches. You got several things right and are making good progress, mehamed k.

[@worldpeace8299]

+Jerome Horwitz Creationism is not synonymous with Intelligent Design. Evolution is a theory and not a fact. It is full of holes and has its opponents. Mutation makes no sense whatsoever. It could be partially true. Who knows? The real point is, most of us do not discover anything for ourselves but adopt, or have drummed into us, a selection of institutional thoughts that we may come to think are our own

[@martinlag1]

world peace Read back your comments... '' Mutation makes no sense whatsoever. It could be partially true. Who knows?'' Can you see a contradiction in your words? Why would I read any further your mindless comments?

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

world peace A scientific theory is the closest thing to a verified fact there can be, there are no 'absolute truths' in science. Just because mutation makes no sense to you, doesn't mean it makes no sense to educated people who understand more than you do. "Intelligent Design" is just a marketing scam, a Trojan Horse for Creationism to sneak religious teaching into public schools. Intelligent Design is not a theory since it proposes no physical mechanism for the development of living species-- it is not science, it is just a smokescreen for a religious belief.

[@nzmagpie1]

I liked the comment about Darwinists "cutting off the branches they are sitting on" when referring to religion as a Darwinian advantage outcome, but is false and thereby implying that the theory of Darwinian evolution as also false, by the same logic.

[@tablaturebutler2823]

One of the greatest things about natural phenomena is that they don't require the assent of the ignorant to proceed. Natural selection and evolution will continue until the end of the universe when and wherever conditions that can support life occur. When humanity has extincted itself on this planet, it will continue as it did before and long after these foolish debates ever happened...

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

Darwin's theory has been corroborated by 150 years of evidence gathering and observation. There is no alternative theory to compete with evolution and that shows no sign of changing. Sorry Creationists, you lost-- get over it.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Jerome Horwitz , you wrote, "Darwin's theory has been corroborated by 150 years of evidence gathering and observation." The problem with your assertion is that after 150 years of UNSCIENTIFIC attempts to prove evolution (rather than to falsify it,) no evidence has been found, except in the minds of evolutionists. Evolutionism has all the hallmarks of a religious cult. Dan

[@Albertanator]

hilarious....no it hasn't.....

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

@@Albertanator Merely denying the facts won't make them go away.

[@Albertanator]

@@jeromehorwitz2460 No worse then you proclaiming a fait accompli for Darwin....just talk to Berlinski or Denton among others....see if you stray out of your narrow minded ways.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

@@Albertanator Name a single university with a reputable life sciences department anywhere in the world that denies evolution or takes Creationism seriously. Creationists have been banging their heads against a brick wall for 100 years, gaining zero influence in science and only losing ground with the general public.

[@garywalker447]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution: "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."

[@Ozzyman200]

All this time and they're still trying to find a flaw with evolution. And waiting....

[@Ozzyman200]

+elrolly "by evolution's logic a fish can develop to a land animal" No that's not what evolution claims at all. You don't disagree with evolution. You only disagree with what you think evolution is. It is noticeable that creationists usually resort to insults about others' intelligence, but cant even form a sentence of their own. Always the way.

[@jaakkooksa5374]

"by evolution's logic a fish can develop to a land animal with enough pressure from nature, when fish can't even go on land to procreate and pass the surviving gene" Ever heard of amphibious fish?

[@abdelw]

david berlinsky

[@garywalker447]

Berlinsky is a liar, a fraud and a fool.

[@tracik1277]

Jaako Osaka climbing perch and eels

[@danielswaim5566]

funny... he kinda looks like Richard Dawkins

[@tommcdonald4014]

So Darwin (and evolution) is dodgy because this presenter can advance a number of straw men versions of it, and modern science writ large, based on definitions he presents that few or no actual scientists would accept. Seems legit.

[@abdelw]

darwinism is a fantastic and an incredible religion. I'm amazed.

[@tommcdonald4014]

It's a religion? Cool! What are its tenents, and what does it tell us to worship? I want to sign up!

[@abdelw]

Tom McDonald There's this central and amazing belief that something can come out of nothing, this is to me a preposterous position to hold. Worship? it's up to you, could be money, sex, books, trees, shopping, I mean, anything that's down to earth...

[@tommcdonald4014]

It is a preposterous belief! That's why no one on our side believes it. That's what *you* believe: that everything poofed into existence at the whim of some god thing. Evolution starts with the first cell capable of multiplying by dividing and builds up from there. Not from nothing. As to worship, I'll take the sex and books, please! Sign me up.

[@abdelw]

Tom McDonald "Evolution starts with the first cell capable of multiplying by dividing" Where did this magic cell come from?

[@rstevewarmorycom]

He seems to be blathering. He makes little sense.

[@igotstaknow]

Perhaps the lifestyles you support makes you not want to be told different perspectives.

[@bubbaoj]

Your lack of understanding isn't necessarily evidence of a lack of sense.

[@somelivesdontmattersldm8776]

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory's and beliefs of insane people

[@garywalker447]

The lie of creationism cannot be asserted or defended with honesty.

[@Mrm1985100]

It's not a lie.

[@garywalker447]

@@Mrm1985100 Yes, creationism is a lie. We have observed Evolution.

[@garywalker447]

The lie of creationism cannot be asserted or defended with honesty.