Darwin in Action

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

I have always been skeptical of the scientific evidence, or rather the lack of scientific evidence, for Darwinian evolution.  However, perhaps there is something to it:

 

And so Pepino decided to publicly announce her decision – strategically making the personal political – by setting up BirthStrike, a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”. In doing so, she hopes to channel the grief she feels about her decision “into something more active and regenerative and hopeful”. In just two weeks, 140 people, mostly women in the UK, have declared their “decision not to bear children due to the severity of the ecological crisis”, says Pepino. “But we have also had people get in touch to say: ‘Thank you for speaking out about something that I didn’t feel I could even talk to my family about,’” she adds. Many of these BirthStrikers are involved with Extinction Rebellion, which on Saturday threw buckets of red paint outside Downing Street to symbolise “the death of our children” from climate change.

Go here to read the rest.  Human folly:  almost always amusing, occasionally lethal.

More to explorer

Leftism

    Leftism is a substitute religion.  The only thing it has in common with Christianity is the command to worship no

They Will Need a Wing Just For Mark Shea

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   U.S.—The nation’s psychiatric wards are preparing themselves for an influx of deranged

Reverse Watergate

  So two years and forty million dollars later, the Mueller report confirms what any sentient person knew at the beginning of

22 Comments

  1. “And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
    “We, the people” are George Washington’s constitutional Posterity, each and every one and all future generations.
    And as George Washington looks down from heaven upon his glorious Posterity, he will petition God for our well being.
    (Man is the glory of God. Woman is the glory of Man)
    As for me and my household, we will follow God.
    Atheistic Darwinism is out. “their Creator” is in.

  2. I agree 100% with the point of this post. I also agree with this statement: “I have always been skeptical of the scientific evidence, or rather the lack of scientific evidence, for Darwinian evolution.” The Church forbids belief in purely atheistic materialistic Darwinian evolution. But the reconciling a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn’t easy. I have tried to explain these things here – yes, I know that’s not the point of this post, but I think people should understand that just because the Church rejects atheistic materialistic evolution doesn’t mean she is anti-scientific.

    PS, I don’t have the education or experience that people like Dr. Kurland have. But this is my best attempt at being Biblical and Scientific, so my apologies for any errors. And yes, being a nuke, I am long winded, but truth can’t be distilled into a Facebook meme or Twitter soundbite. And being a nuke, I love science.

    Fine Tuning of the Universe
    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/contendens-suptilis-universitatis.html

    Days of Creation
    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.html

    Creation vs Evolution
    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.html

    Mitochondrial Eve
    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/heva-mitochondrialis.html

  3. In doing so, she hopes to channel the grief she feels about her decision “into something more active and regenerative and hopeful”.

    more active, regenerative and hopeful other than a child??

    When they moved the “Go Green!” from St. Patrick’s Day to one of paganistic belief in Mother Gaia is when I stopped listening. I take care of my own home and environment. I don’t need anyone else telling me how and what is the best way to do it.

    I’m always amazed at how the greenies love to tell us there are too many people on the earth and we should cull the herd. Yet, you never hear them say, “Watch me, this is the way.”, as they take their own lives instead of wanting others to die or stop reproducing.

    When people stopped believing in God with their whole hearts, minds and souls is when they started believing that everything depends on them to survive, even the Earth. People have a need to believe they have a reason and purpose in life otherwise everything is for naught. When that real purpose (God) is rejected everything else is game.

    I believe what the Church rejects from Darwinism is the atheistic notion that in evolution there is and was no divine intervention, simply put.

  4. “…which on Saturday threw buckets of red paint outside Downing Street to symbolise “the death of our children” from climate change.”

    Yup. Buckets of red paint.
    Meanwhile…symbolically speaking..how many 55 gallon drums are needed to capture the blood of 60 million aborted babies.

    Chastisement is happening now.
    God sez; So be it. You have chosen.
    Now we live with the consequences.

    Global warming. Climate changes.

    Yup. Buck up and hang on. The ride is only going to get worse.

  5. “Chastisement is happening now.
    God sez; So be it. You have chosen.
    Now we live with the consequences.
    Global warming. Climate changes.
    Yup. Buck up and hang on. The ride is only going to get worse.”

    Bingo Philip

  6. Ordinary Catholic, what you wrote is exactly the point of my previous comment that included links to four different posts that I made elsewhere demonstrating the correctness of your statement: “I believe what the Church rejects from Darwinism is the atheistic notion that in evolution there is and was no divine intervention, simply put.”

    But yes, you were far brief, much more succinct and much simpler than I. 😉

  7. ” I take care of my own home and environment. I don’t need anyone else telling me how and what is the best way to do it.”
    Every person must exercise his conscience in this respect. Government is not the authority over the peoples’ lives.

  8. The only positive side to the BirthStrikers – they will not be passing on their genes, thus improving the gene pool.

  9. In one of Rush Limbaugh’s books, he points out that Paul Erlich forecast mass starvation and ecological disaster – and wrote bestsellers about his ideas. He is, of course, wrong, but Stanford University still let him teach there.

    The left continues to be a circular firing squad.

  10. I don’t see any conflict between between Genesis 1 & 2. Until a few years back man didn’t even understand that matter can be created & destroyed–hence the term “anti-matter.” And Genesis 1& 2 were not written as a modern day science text book they were written as a revelation by the Hoky Spirit of God through Moses. Big difference there!!

    If we cannot believe that Moses really meant a literal day & night–then how can we believe that man truly fell in Genesis 3 and that Jesus had a literal birth, life, death, burial, & resurrection as written in the New Testaments? After all, it doesn’t make sense scientifically that Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead & then rise from the dead Himself. Maybe it really want 3 literal days (part of 3 days in actual Jewish culture,) between when Jesus died & rose again. *sarcasm* Maybe it was a very long period of time that was just called a day by the author. *sarcasm* After all, if evolution through long periods of time could result in a cat evolving into a dog or an ape into a human, then maybe a long time could have allowed evolution to turn Jesus’ dead body into a live one! *sarcasm*

    Luke 16:29 & Romans 1:18-23

  11. Don Beckett! Bingo! Ditto!
    Our gkids, who will be here and alive, will write the history of these women, and there will be no gkids of theirs to say otherwise; nor will there be any of their ideological clones out there. Similar to the lady democrat socialist totalitarian comedian who has had five abortions – none of her gkids will be repeating her mama-murder propaganda to our gkids. Of course, having kids kids gkids and gkids is how the immigrants are peacefully taking over Europe and insuring that these ladies’ culture is dead anyway. Guy McClung, Texas

    Abortion Celebrations
    If you’re happy killing babies, clap your hands.
    If you’re happy killing babies, clap your hands.
    If you’re happy baby killing and for you it’s so fulfilling,
    If you’re happy killing, babies clap your hands.

    If you’re happy babies die, clap your hands.
    If you’re happy babies die, clap your hands.
    If you’re happy babies die, and you’ll never hear them cry,
    If you’re happy babies die, clap your hands.

    If you’re old and all alone, don’t clap your hands.
    If you’re old and all alone, don’t clap your hands.
    If you’re old and all alone, and your children aren’t at home,
    If you’re old and all alone, don’t clap your hands.

    Abortion Celebrations
    by Guy McClung, Catholic Lane, Apr 20, 2015

  12. “BirthStrike, a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”.

    Wonderful example. These folks are creating their own extinction event. The problem is the delay in accomplishment. If they were really serious and wanted credibility they would advance the idea of a DeathStrike in which mass suicide would be advocated. Things being the way they are this idea surely already is being planned someplace.

  13. Dear Christian Teacher,

    I explain days of creation here:

    Days of Creation
    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.html

    Time is NOT absolute. It’s relative. The universe is both 13.73 billion years old and created in six 24 hour days. The solution to the apparent inconsistency is in physics. I got my idea from Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s work and from what I learned about physics in Naval Nuclear Power School some four decades ago. Kindly read the article. Thanks.

  14. He is, of course, wrong, but Stanford University still let him teach there.

    He was a tenured population biologist. They really couldn’t can him because he wrote a bad trade book. Ehrlich was simply out of his depth writing about human populations, economics, and geography. Having been pwnd by Julian Simon and confronting the very serious fertility deficits of the occidental world, he elected to double-down. See some of his articles in BioScience over the years.

  15. LQC:

    Thanks for the info.

    I have studied these things in depth. You say that time is not absolute & then make a statement about the age of the universe that is completely unprovable & very absolutist. I learned in my senior year in college getting a math & science degree (not at at an Ivy League school so I actually had to learn something) that carbon dating is based on a man made formula that includes exponential notation & integrals–thereby resulting in a wide extrapolation of values over time. That is why one person will say that a given evolutionary event happened 300 million years ago & another says that same event occurred at 100 million years ago–and both can say they are correct. Well, an event absolutely cannot occur at both 100 million AND 300 million years. Now, any age of the Earth also rests on the unprovable man made theory of Uniformitarianism–which is in fact false & demonstrably so. Changes in pressure, temperature, a world wide flood, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions –all kinds of things effect the rate at which things change in real time. No one can say with certainty how old the Earth/universe is using our modern day science –despite all of the pretensions.

    Some other questions I have about the use of Uniformitarianism & carbon dating in the use of finding the age of the Earth–

    1. Assuming that Uniformitarianism is true (unprovable with tons of evidence it isn’t) and that man has gotten the correct formula for carbon decay that works correctly for all things (it doesn’t–that is why exponents & integrals are used in the calculations)–who is to say that God didn’t create with the appearance of age? He is certainly capable of it. If a modern scientist would have analyzed Adam’s age 1hour after God’s creating Adam, the scientist would have declared Adam to be about 25-30 years old, for instance. God would have known that Adam was really an hour old.

    2. Say that your given age of the Earth/universe is true–who is to say that God did not create other races of beings, even other humans like us to glorify Himself, who lived on the Earth previous to His creation of Adam?

    There are a lot more possible answers than evolution occurring over millions of years.

    And again, the Bible’s main purpose is to share spiritual realities–not make analogies with modern day “scientific” thinking.

    Also, real science is the ability to repeat the same experiment under the same conditions anywhere–and get the same results. Anything else has unknowable elements of guess work. That is for example why we don’t know what caused the dinosaurs to go extinct for sure. There is no way to go back in time before any of us existed & recreate the same conditions to prove the age of the Earth/universe.

  16. Dear Christian Teacher,

    I don’t want to derail this post by debating much more on this issue.

    DATING METHODS

    As far as the usefulness of carbon dating goes, there are a variety of radiometric dating methods:

    Uranium-lead: useful for billions of years in the case of U-238 and hundreds of millions of years for U-235
    Samarium-neodymium: two billion years with an accuracy of 20 million years
    Potassium-argon: useful for billions of years
    And so on – I won’t list them all here

    RADIOACTIVE DEACY EQUATION

    Using the limited usefulness of carbon dating to deride all radiometric dating methods and to invalidate the equation A = A0 + N(t) (e^λt − 1) is simply illogical. I know the equation works because I was a radiation monitoring system engineer at a commercial nuclear reactor and I used this equation all the time to calculate the amount of radioactive substance remaining after a given amount of time. If one knows the isotope and the length of time and the amount of curies of activity, then the calculation is completely straight-forward. Please don’t insult my intelligence and 40+ years of experience since the first time I used that equation when calculating the response of the air particulate detector for the reactor compartment on a 688 class fast attack nuclear submarine. If we had a reactor coolant leak, then based on the volume released, and on previous chemistry sampling or reactor coolant, I could precisely calculate with the detector would read over time once the leak was terminated. Whether billions of years or a few hours, the equation works. Period.

    AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

    As for the age of the universe, from our perspective it is 13.73 billion years old. I suppose that if intelligent life could survive in a sufficiently large gravity, the age would appear different to him. Likewise, someone travelling significantly close to light speed would likewise perceive a different age. I was not being absolutist. I gave an age consistent with our perspective (relatively low gravity well in a location not moving at a significant fraction of light speed).

    We know the universe is billions of years old because the stars in distant galaxies are billions of light years away. This is not conjecture nor theory. It’s fact. But again, if the observer’s perspective changes (location in a greater gravity well or travelling at a significant fraction of light speed), then what he perceives as age likewise changes. The only thing that is constant is the speed of light in a vacuum. Space and time are relative.

    ALIEN LIFE

    I concur that God may have created other sentient life elsewhere in the universe. That’s irrelevant to the issue.

    EVOLUTION

    I wrote about that at the link below. I won’t repeat that discussion here. I have already derailed this conversation too much.

    https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.html

    CONCLUSION

    I have no issue with a person believing in instantaneous divine creation or in a gradual creation over a long period of time through directed evolution. I do take issue with both atheistic materialistic evolution of the secularists on the one hand and willfully blind scientific ignorance of the radical traditionalist and evangelical fundamentalists on the other hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.