Privileged Planet: The fallout

| 26 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

Guillermo Gonzalez, author of “Privileged Planet” is touting the concept of Intelligent, reports “The Iowa Channel”. It is creating quite some uproar at Iowa State University.

Gonzalez Wrote:

“It’s something that brings a renewed interest in science”

Gonzalez remains silent as to how this brings a renewed interest in science. Conflating science and religion never serves a good purpose.

Gonzalez said that humans are the product of a creator – whether it is God or whomever – and were not created by chance and a product of evolution.

Michael Clough, an assistant professor at ISU who prepares future science teachers for the classroom, said intelligent design is simply not science.

Good for science and education, 120 staff and faculty at ISU have signed a petition asking that the university reject all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor.

More of Gonzalez’s creationist ‘publications’ can be found at the Reasons to Believe website, whose mission statement includes

The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. Our mission is to bring that life-changing truth to as many people as possible, both believers and unbelievers.

It is our conviction that since the same God who “authored” the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted.

The Desmoines Register reports that Gonzalez does not approve of the actions of his colleages

Guillermo Gonzalez , an ISU astronomy professor who is nationally known for his research on intelligent design, said his colleagues are creating a hostile work climate by circulating the petition.

Enjoy the many arguments against the Privileged Planet thesis

Funny how ID proponents start complaining about ‘hostile environments’ when scientists stand up to point out the flaws in ID’s claims.

The full petition reads:

We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.

Advocates of Intelligent Design claim the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.

Such claims, however, are premised on 1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; 2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and 3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

See Gonzalez in Action

2 TrackBacks

You can read Bill D whining........ Read More

In the comments over at the Pandas Thumb about the recent developments surrounding Iowa University faculty asking the University Board to reject ID as science, after certain pro-ID comments by one of the astronomy professors Guillermo Gonzalez shows ... Read More

26 Comments

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run? Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields – you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG). Second, if you defend Darwinism or criticize ID, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields – or no credentials at all – you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media (witness NM).

But having the credentials does not necessarily lead to producing good science, Bill. Stop your whining. Producing good science is hard work, producing books (etc.) for the masses is … I’m sure it pays well, though.

Re: Comment 45253 by William Dembski. Usual Dembski’s diatribe: credentials, qualifications, blah blah, and not a word on substance of the item he dislikes. Spitting out venom is hardly a valid argument, but what else can be expected from the Newton of information theory? Btw, Dembski’s underling Cordova wrote on another thread here about his respect for PT team for allowing free comments from anybody. To be consistent, should not Cordova disrespect Dembski for deleting from his sites any comment he dislikes? But what kind of consistency and fairness can be expected from Dembski and his cohorts?

Allow me the honor of a reply.

William, it’s not about credentials. It’s about science and how science is conducted.

As a science fair judge I’ve observed excellent science performed by 6th graders. I’ve also known people with PhD’s who were clueless about science or the scientific method.

Everybody, however, has an opinion.

“Intelligent design” has not resulted from nor produced any science. It’s opinion. Fifty books, a thousand op-ed pieces and a million web pages don’t constitute science.

A twelve-year old with a potato and curiosity has done better than all the “intelligent design” proponents put together.

So, you see, it’s not about you. It’s not about what you support or don’t support, what you believe or don’t believe.

It’s about what you haven’t done. Science. Simple as that.

Best regards, Dr. Bill Farrell, PhD Chemistry (an unrelated field)

Exactly where do you figure that PvM is talking about credential, anyway? From what I remember, Dembski’s painful attempts to transform ID into science have been bad enough that they fall down with a little help of proper science. I certainly don’t remember any argument dismissed only because of credentials, least of which this article.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Posted by William Dembski on August 28, 2005 09:41 AM (e) (s)

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator?

Nope.

Do you have a scientific theory of ID?

Nope.

Game over.

It is true that the intelligent design proponents like Dembski haven’t done the science, but a more damning thing about them is what they have been doing. They have been acting as the fig leaf Newtons of creationism, just cheap covers for the embarassing parts. That isn’t even good theology let alone science.

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run? Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG). Second, if you defend Darwinism or criticize ID, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields — or no credentials at all — you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media (witness NM).

(1) Except in reality, creationists (including ID’ers) tend to appeal to authority, whereas “evolutionists” are more interested in the actual arguments made.

(2) Your post has no relevance to the opening post.

(3) I bet you don’t respond to ANY of the responses to your comment.

Bill’s just cranky about the upcoming Dover obliteration.

Testing my own text generator. Please ignore.

PvM: Do you have an anti-Flat Earth text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run? Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize sphericism or defend Flat Earth theories, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Second, if you defend sphericism or criticize Flat Earth theories, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields — or no credentials at all — you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media.

Yup. Makes just as much sense as before.

William Dembski Wrote:

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run?

Since ID is context free, such a generator would not be that difficult to write.

Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG).

Criticizing something is often quite simple isn’t it Bill? Such as complaining that evolutionary theory cannot provide a step by step account for a particular feature. Of course when asked to provide such an account for the ID explanation, ID proponents seem to have responded with ‘pathetic’… And distantiate themselves from any responsibility to defend or even propose a scientific explanation. Criticizing is simple when one relies on older papers and pretend that that is all there is. But many people have criticized Darwinian theory scientifically and expanded science’s understanding. ID however has nothing to offer here.

Second, if you defend Darwinism or criticize ID, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields — or no credentials at all — you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media (witness NM).

That’s ironic isn’t it… Accusing others of something ID is desperately trying to achieve. Credibility in the main stream media.

But let’s cut through the *&^ for a moment and observe how Dembski responds in a manner becoming more and more typical among ID proponents, by painting themselves as hapless victims. Gonzalez for instance is lamenting how his “mean fellow scientists” are creating a hostile work environment since they are exposing ID as scientifically vacuous.

Come on Bill, you surely can do better than play the victim… Provide us with the step by step details you require for evolutionary theory and show us how ID did it…

Oh I forgot, you considered this a pathetic request…

WAD Wrote:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

PS: I am quite flattered to have Bill respond to my articles as he did. I must be doing something right it seems.

“distantiate”?

Bill’s just cranky about the upcoming Dover obliteration.

Plus he didn’t get paid. He wanted big bucks to be an expert witness, but expert at what?

Ya know, the saddest thing of all, I think, is that it is quite impossible to tell, from the posts here, whether this really *IS* “William Dembski”, or just some half-educated nutter using his name.

That, uh, doesn’t reflect well upon Rev Dembski.

But let’s cut through the *&^ for a moment and observe how Dembski responds in a manner becoming more and more typical among ID proponents, by painting themselves as hapless victims.

Oops, you mis-spelled “losers”.

Actually it’s hard not to feel sorry for the ID/creationists. I can’t think of very many other political/social movements that have suffered such an embarrassingly long unbroken string of loss after loss after loss after loss. After all, they’ve lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. That HAS to be some sort of record …

Why is it so easy to criticize Dembski and ID? Because they refuse to tell us all of the relevant data necessary to be an actual scientific theory. Dembski thinks his credentials sanctify his lack of proper science, and his continued distortions of truth must also be sanctified by Ph.D/religion.

This is what I wrote on ARN, and I believe that it summarizes the vacuity of Dembski and the meaninglessness of his continued whines:

Had I been following the Perakh/Salvador exchange, and it appeared that Perakh was wrong, I hope that I’d say so. However I really don’t bother reading such exchanges for a simple reason: Dembski does not follow the standard scientific practice of fitting numerical models to the data.

That is to say, we have excellent evidence, in sequence homologies, that the flagellum did evolve:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]/001139.html

These homologies are accepted by IDists where they agree that “Darwinism” has been responsible for evolution, and of course the “designer using the same components” excuse does not work for the occasional homologous residue in a protein. We had reason to believe the flagellum had evolved previous to this, because we know the organisms evolved, in that there is nothing to demarcate “designed” versus evolved (“naturally”) in the genome or in protein sequences. Yet it is all the better to have the evolution of the flagellum indicated from information sequences.

So we know that the flagellum evolved. Models not accounting for the data indicating evolution are inadequate. Thus the long tendentious debates over methods intended to bypass the evidence of evolution are beside the point.

We really should criticize ID first and most forcefully for its improper scientific practices, such as using mathematics to try to disprove the evolution that the evidence shows did occur. One tests mathematical models by the evidence, not the other way around.

And I added this on another forum:

Let me put it this way: We’ve long had the evidence that organisms evolved. Unaccounta bly (by the science), some will say that the bacterial flagellum is an exception. Supposing that you give credit to their criticisms (and I know of no scientific or philosophi cal reason to do so), or you just decide to show how science can decide things, one may turn to the tests.

How do you test if the flagellum evolved? By checking out the protein sequences and/or the genes which produce these protein sequences. So although there seems little good reason to doubt flagellum evolution, one may yet test the evolutiona ry theory by checking to see if homologies in the sequences exist. They do:

http://www .ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/en trez/query .fcgi?db=g ene&cmd=Re trieve&dop t=Graphics &list_uids =946456

So (“naturali stic”) evolution succeeded once again in dealing with the actual data, in predicting that homologies would exist (I should warn that this may not be the case for every early-evol ved organelle, but the prediction does exist in any case where time allows the data to still exist). ID, of course, cannot predict the homologies , and if one really uses standard measures of design, it suggests that the few (but statistica lly significan t) residues that match between sequences are not in the least what would be expected from design. Known “designers “ who copy other designs do not copy in that fashion, rather the pattern is only what would be expected from “naturalis tic” evolution.

Legitimate tests for design have never been kind to ID of any sort, while evolution is required to explain the informatio n that remains from evolutiona ry adaptation s that occurred long ago.

Could mathematic al tests neverthele ss “disprove” evolution, theoretica lly? Yes, if they could account for the extreme complexity of historical evolution. It’s absurd to suppose that Dembski has done so, or that the informatio n is presently available for anybody to do so.

The only proper thing for Dembski to do is to admit that his model is falsified by the homologies that show the flagellum to have evolved. This is science, for if a model is to be scientific it must be open to falsificat ion via the data, while there is no call for the model to deny the evolutiona ry patterns still evident in the protein sequences.

Dembski doesn’t do science, and he whines pitifully when he is called out on this fact. He won’t abandon a model disproving evolution of the flagellum because normally accepted evidence for evolution exists for flagellar evolution, thus he abandons science for religion. It’s pathetic.

(3) I bet you don’t respond to ANY of the responses to your comment.

If he does it will be as meaningless and egregious as his first irrelevant post.

Gee, I wonder how long before Salvador comes on here and licks Dembski’s boots, etc., with equally meaningless whines and BS.

IDist whine of persecution generator:

No content needed, just mention credentials (however irrelevant to biological evolution), put down critics as unfair and closeminded, and accuse them of spitting on you–with the implication that this is unfairly done (always ignore the fact that you have been answered numerous times, without the standard requirement that your model show some merit, and that you have spit on many well-considered critiques and otherwise have failed to defend your own claims). Sort of like this:

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run? Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG). Second, if you defend Darwinism or criticize ID, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields — or no credentials at all — you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media (witness NM).

See how easy it is? No more need to justify your criticisms of others than to defend your “ideas”. While it’s not much of a talent, it is the only one that I’ve seen mastered well by the IDers across the board, while the “science” remains undetectable.

First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked

Although many ID proponents lack lack credentials in any form of biology compared to the ‘evolutionists’ they are trying to convince about ID (ultimately) this is a side issue and rather irrelevant.

Quite frankly, all that matters in the end is how well your ‘science’ stacks up. As has been demonstrated Dembski, your maths have been demonstrated to both be irrelevant to the actual ‘real world’ in terms of a working model and the explanatory filter useless for actually detecting anything meaningful. The only point that is relevant is the arguments and science behind ID has not stacked up to scruitiny. While you live in a fantasy world where evolutions waterloo (how many has it been?) is just around the corner, the reality is that ID has made little headway anywhere in actually challenging any aspect of evolutionary theory: because ID has produced no data and no theory.

But I don’t really care about what degree ID proponents have it just tends to be an often repeated observation that the majority of ID proponents lack degrees in biology. Only someone foolish however would suggest that because of this, that makes what degrees leading ID proponents such as yourself have are meaningless or means you aren’t scientific. In fact, you have a more than a reasonable degree in mathematics and Behe has an extremely respectable degree in Biochemistry for just a couple of examples. The problem is, you’re not trying to convince people that are in your field of expertise, you’re trying to convince biologists who very definitely aren’t finding your arguments, ‘evidence’ or theories (well, what theory?) convincing in the slightest. If the people you are trying to convince repeatedly find your arguments don’t stack up to their real observed data, then the problem is either in your model (which, I am firmly convinced it is) and not with theirs.

A good scientist, rather than complain or make appeals to credentials would instead address the issues first hand and not resort to simply comparing ones opponents to various Russian leaders.

Bill on his own blog site is whining that Avalos wants to get Gonzalez fired. Guess WAD’s reading comprehension is as poor as his science.

Damn, another interesting topic hijacked by a single irrelevant post from a troll.

So what’s been happening with Privileged Planet, either the book or movie version?

Comment #45253

William Dembski

PvM: Do you have an anti-ID text generator? Plug in the names, places, and a few other specifics, and just let it run? Such a generator is easy enough to program since it depends on only two rules: First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG).

Second, if you defend Darwinism or criticize ID, it doesn’t matter whether you have minimal credentials in unrelated fields — or no credentials at all — you are licensed to spit on anyone in the first category. And get quoted as an authority in the mainstream media (witness NM).

Much like your books? Your entire career? Your fraudulent existence in science? Your complete lack of qualifications to write on evolution? You’re a mathmatician and philosopher - and thus you are not, in any way shape or form, any more a scientist than I am as an accountant.

And why does your work so closely run with the Seven Signs of Junk Science?:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. (You do that.) 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. (You claim that.) 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. (In ID’s case, non-detectable.) 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. (You do a version of that.) 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. (Your movement touts that.) 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. (You have a variation of this.) 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. (Your variation is that you claim a supernatural cause.)

Hey Dembski-

When are you going to stop bitching & moaning and come up with a Theory of ID???

And when the hell are you going to permit dissenting opinions on your piece-of-crap blog???!!!

Ah, Dembskian Science in action!

A New And Different Viewpoint

BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE ORIGINS OF MANKIND

Man’s understanding of his origins has been within his grasp for a considerable time, but he has for the most part failed to access it because of a rift between science and religion. He has elected to limit himself to reliance upon either one or the other: scientific knowledge, or spiritual understanding, and ordinarily does not seriously consider them separate aspects of the same enigma. In general, man has not yet perceived the crucially important fact that both the Darwin-evolutionists and spiritually inclined religionists are correct, as far as each goes. Each represents a different part of the same mystery. The situation has remained static because of man’s inclination to rely exclusively upon either that which science has learned, or that which religionists have come to perceive as truth. Each have spurned impartial consideration of the others’ ideas, refusing to consider them, although it is only when considered together that they supply the overall truth about man’s origins.

Generally speaking, man remains unclear about his origins because he has locked himself into biased views he seems powerless to change. Part of the reason for this failure is found in comments made by Dr. Albert Schweitzer, in his book, My Life And Thoughts:

“The organized political, social and religious associations of our time are at work to induce the individual person not to arrive at his convictions by his own thinking, but rather to make his convictions those which are being ready made for him by others. Any man who thinks for himself and at the same time is spiritually free, is to those who would influence or control his thoughts, something inconvenient and even uncanny. Such a one, refusing to be controlled by the notions of others, does not offer them sufficient guarantee that he will merge into that organization the way they wish. From every side and in the most varied ways it is dinned into him that the truths and convictions which he needs for life must be taken from the associations which have gained rights over him at the expense of his own GOD-given free will. He comes at last to believe himself unqualified to make serious claim to thoughts of his own (and concludes that) the great important decisions are made by those much higher in standing, even (in this case, scientific) and religious circles.”

In the practical sense, few individuals are able to personally devote the required time and effort to learn what Dr. Leakey and a host of archaeologists have been able to extract from long-studied earth excavations. What those diligent investigators have learned, however, is readily available in recorded treatises, books and documentaries. There is no longer a scintilla of doubt in the minds of unbiased rational people that a clear trail of archaeological remnants leads directly from pre-human creatures, unable to walk upright, to the development of those who did, and that in time the latter further developed to the point that the incarnation of the spirit souls of angels in man commenced. It marked the turning point from animalistic pre-man to spiritualized homo sapiens.

It was a development that took place through some 3 ½ million years, during which time man’s mental acuity also commensurately developed, until at length he was capable of inventing the wheel, tools, and increasingly complex instruments. A human being’s nature is to be an independent, individual thinking person, and it is apparent that there are not simply two parts composing him; there are three parts: flesh, mind and spirit. The transformation of primitive manlike creatures unable to walk upright, to those who could, was but one of many critically-important changes that led through eons of time to the development of homo sapiens.

It was only at the point when primitive pre-man was sufficiently developed on the earth that he was able to accept the incarnation of angelic spirits within him, that he became homo sapiens. Before that momentous transformation was completed, he would be best described as a gradually developing ape-man — a primitive flesh creature undergoing developmental processes of a spiritual nature. The Bible supports that thesis, explaining:

“Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:46).

In other words, primitive manlike flesh creatures first developed on the earth, and when they had advanced to a condition that angelic souls composed of God’s Spirit Energy were able to incarnate into them, homo sapiens came into reality. It was this infusion of the spirit of angels that provided man his dominant position over his primitive predecessors.

The Bible confirms that proposition, noting that “there is a Spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty that gives him understanding” (Job 32:8). It is this angel-derived soul incarnated within man that sets him apart from, and above, primitive creatures that developed on the earth before him. It is contended by religionists that man did not descend from the ape, which is true in a very real sense. Actually, he ascended from a partly developed apelike creature, elevated through the ages until it reached a point that advanced spirit centers, or chakras, were formed within him, enabling him to receive, accommodate and sustain soul portions of the miscible spirit energy of angels. These souls became an integral part of man’s being: his portion of GOD’s Holy Spirit. It is therefore understood that without an angelic soul incarnated within a human flesh body, it is no more than an incomplete man; a bestial creature. It is noteworthy that the DNA of homo sapiens differs only slightly from that of early primitive man, indicating that his flesh portion has gradually evolved step by step from previously existent man-like creatures, to where he is today. We can reasonably project that early man’s spirit centers and mental acuity gradually developed in tandem as he made his way through his earth experiences.

Archaeologists have succeeded in tracing man’s flesh evolution through eons of time and development, and scientists are convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have managed to assemble virtually the complete story of his origins. Religionists, however, will have no part of the latter thesis, remaining secure in their steadfast conviction that man is strictly and exclusively the divine product of GOD’s Creation. The Bible does not present much information about man’s flesh development, being mainly devoted to characterizing his spirituality — recounting what has been recorded of the known historicity of his generations.

Religionists have elected to follow their chosen pathway out of belief and faith, whereas evolutionists have followed what science has shown them. Unfortunately, a sharp line of demarcation separates their adverse positions. It is a division that has made it difficult for mankind in general to perceive the truth that, in respect to his flesh, man is an animal; but that as the result of the incarnation of a spirit soul incarnated in him, he has been elevated into a spiritualized being. That this resulted from a divine plan is suggested in the Book of Ecclesiastes:

“I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” (Eccles. 3:18-21)

The Bible explains that GOD is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and that His Spirit Son — who manifested on earth as Adam (Lk. 3:28), and subsequently as Jesus of Nazareth (Lk. 4:41) — has GOD’s Spirit Energy without limitation (Jn. 3:34). Further, that after the Son was created, He then made other spirit children for GOD, from His Spirit Energy (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:13-19); which is that of GOD. Thus it is written: “In Him we live, and move, and have our being…for we are His offspring” (Acts 17:26,28). In brief, the Scripture explains that the souls in men are composed of portions of the Spirit Energy of the Son of GOD — earth-incarnated portions of Angels also composed of the Holy Spirit Energy of GOD, the Father of all, by HIS Spirit Son (1 Cor. 8:6).

Certain biblical verses imply that the flesh portion of man — providing at the time of death it is sufficiently quickened by the Holy Spirit of GOD and Christ HIS Son — undergoes a transforming metamorphic change from flesh energy into spirit energy, enabling it to reside in Spirit dimensions much higher than earth (Jn. 20:11-20). Apostle Paul taught that”Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), but he likely referred to a flesh body that had not yet been quickened and transmuted by GOD’s Holy Spirit Energy.

Man and his invisible soul are bonded together to form a spiritualized flesh being, a concept not yet comprehensible by scientific means. In that respect, evolutionists are stranded without a way to reach across the invisible gulf that separates man’s flesh being from his spiritual essence. Darwin’s theory did not include a suggestion that powerful creative forces might have been the cause of man’s development, and in that respect it militates against the strong religious beliefs of many. Religionists sense that all creation, the Universe and everything in it — all that is, ever has been, or ever will be — is the Divine Creation of a Spirit Energy Force referred-to as “GOD.”

Scientific inquirers, lacking knowledge of the existence and ethereal nature of Spirit Energy, unhesitatingly hearkened to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. From the time it was announced they have conducted a patient and thorough investigation, painstakingly examining archaeological leads back in time as far as possible. They have been able to put a finger on the missing link in the chain of man’s flesh development, but have been unable to find the critically-important spiritual link, leaving them short of a full understanding of man’s spiritual origins, it being beyond the limits of their investigative resources. By their reckoning, man has simply physically evolved in some unplanned way, termed “natural selection,” randomly and unaccountably advancing from forbears that were simple creatures in the evolutionary chain, into ever more complex beings. In this they are partly correct: but they fail to perceive that man’s development reflects the planning of a higher intelligence and power than he possesses. Man did not create the universe, he is but a free-willed pawn on the chessboard of a much greater creative power.

Such an elementary sequential process as envisioned by evolutionists, insures man’s mortality beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. By such reasoning, man’s development has been random, purposeless and meaningless. If his ultimate destination is no more than a place in the ground with a stone marker set over his head, there is nothing for him to look forward to. What sense would his development make if there is no potentially eternal future for him, after his body dies and his earthbound days have expired? If earth’s abysmal often tortuous conditions are not a test of incarnated souls, designed to determine which are fit to hold elevated positions in the heavenly hierarchy, of what value is life on earth? GOD is neither cruel nor a fool.

Religionists long ago reached the understanding that the invisible spirit soul within homo sapiens is composed of the same Spirit Energy as his Creator and Maker, albeit man’s portion is far less “quickened.” Based on that principle, they have concluded that every man has prospects for eternal life, if, as the New Testament teaches, he remains obedient to GOD the Father of All, and to HIS Spirit Son, man’s Maker. GOD clearly has eternal life, which raises the question: why should not children made of HIS Spirit, who remain obedient to HIM, also have prospects for eternal life? And because HE is a Spirit (Jn. 4:34), man’s heavenly home must be presumed to be composed of GOD’S Spirit Energy, as well as Christ the Son’s, as the Bible teaches (Jn. 14:1-4).

An understanding of man’s origins is no longer the perplexing mystery it has remained through past centuries. Evolutionists are correct in their conclusion that man’s flesh portion is the result of millions of years of gradual development. And religionists are equally correct in their contention that homo sapiens has not been around on the earth for nearly so long a time, because the angelic spirit within him only became incarnate-able in comparatively recent times. It could only take place after his flesh body and mind had been appropriately developed to the extent he was able to accept and accommodate an angelic soul incarnated in him.

That the souls in man are actually portions of angels was confirmed by Jesus Christ: “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of GOD, being the children of the resurrection.” (Lk. 20:34-36)

In view of the above verses, it is not difficult to understand how the disparate understandings of evolutionists and religionists are actually part and parcel of one unified whole. Each individual incarnated in flesh on the earth today is able to trace his ancestry back at least a considerable number of generations. In fact, human beings are aware that their parentage extends back indefinitely to forbears they can no longer identify — yet there is no gap between generations. Children universally have parents and grandparents, etc., and if it was possible to trace them back far enough, it would lead to a primitive parentage unable to even record their own existence. Man’s prior generations have moved forward in darkness, learning as he has advanced. At what precise juncture pre-man took on spirit souls and became homo sapiens remains unknown, but it unquestionably took place at some point. The meticulous tracing of mankind’s development by evolutionists starts with the earliest life forms on the earth, and extends to the point that angelic souls were able to incarnate into flesh bodies rendered able to receive and support them. They leave off there, lacking knowledge about Spirit Energy. But at that point, religionists take up the spiritual baton and carry man’s knowledge and understanding forward in time as best they can, tracing out lineages of flesh individuals with spirit souls imbued in them.

As for the Divine Lineage — the preeminent biblically-recorded lineages leading from the Adamic generations to the birth of man’s Savior, Jesus Christ — it is not accurately recorded in the Bible. Luke’s version varies markedly from Matthew’s, but, despite the relatively insignificant differences in ancient records, it remains clear that mankind’s lineages of spiritualized individuals have incarnated in flesh on the earth generation after generation, and that they originated not long ago, comparatively speaking. The millions of years it took primitive pre-man to develop to the point he could stand upright and walk, vastly exceeded the presumably few thousand years homo sapiens has been walking on the earth with spirit souls incarnated in him.

In sum, homo sapiens was the product of a step by step development through a protracted escalation of primitive creatures composed of a flesh body and brain, but lacking an angelic spirit — the spirit-substance of his Creator. When the developmental process had produced a flesh creature capable of serving as a vessel able to accept and sustain spirit soul portions of angels composed of the Creator’s Holy Spirit Energy — albeit it was composed of slower frequencies and far less force than HIS — homo sapiens was brought into existence. It was the result of the merger of three fundamental compositions: body and mind, complemented by GOD’s Holy Spirit. The brilliant Charles Darwin and the evolutionists who have followed him, have accurately explained man’s flesh development — the Holy Bible fills in “the rest of the story” of his spiritual origins.

These above matters are detailed in three books by A.D.H. and S.M.H., available from Amazon.com: Origins of Christ’s New Covenant (rated 5 stars); Metatron - From Adam to Enoch to Jesus of Nazareth (4 5/8 stars); and, Gabriel - Fathoming the Identity of The Holy Ghost (4 5/8 stars).

Website: http://somewherebeyondbelief.com

e-mail addresses: Alfred: [Enable javascript to see this email address.] Suzanne: [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

(yawn)

Thanks for the very long book plug.

Are you related to Carol, by any chance?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on August 27, 2005 6:12 PM.

The New Republic: How intelligent design hurts conservatives was the previous entry in this blog.

More on the California creationist lawsuit is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter