James Le Fanu debunking Darwinism

Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves

When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong ... This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.

Whilst not himself either a creationist or exponent of intelligent design, he argues forcefully that the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism cannot account for the extraordinary world of detailed information contained in every cell of the human body; nor for the workings of the human brain. For those willing to question the doctrine of neo-Darwinism, this is fascinating and very important material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Le_Fanu

http://www.thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/node/14...

Ah, the old "flowerz iz purdy, kittehz iz kyoot aan I iz speshul, therefore (?)doodit" argument from personal incredulity ... this time coming from a ... physician.

Yeah, real convincing that [/sarcasm]

From skimming your second article it seems that he has no real complaints against evolution with the exception that it does not explain "consciousness". That has to be inserted by his invisible friend.

"That has to be inserted by his invisible friend. "

gravity is also invisible, so is magnetism and so are sub atomic particles yet we still claim they exist. so stop trolling M8!!!.

how about your magic friend macroevolution though? which has never been observed.

LOL!!

chemist wrote:

"That has to be inserted by his invisible friend. "
gravity is also invisible, so is magnetism and so are sub atomic particles yet we still claim they exist. so stop trolling M8!!!.
how about your magic friend macroevolution though? which has never been observed.
LOL!!

What do you mean? Of course it has. What makes you think it hasn't been observed.

chemist wrote:

"That has to be inserted by his invisible friend. "
gravity is also invisible, so is magnetism and so are sub atomic particles yet we still claim they exist. so stop trolling M8!!!.
how about your magic friend macroevolution though? which has never been observed.
LOL!!

Wow. Another "shadow" sock puppet.

Any guesses on how many he's going to make altogether?

Pathetic.

AppleSoup wrote:

Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves
When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong ... This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.
Whilst not himself either a creationist or exponent of intelligent design, he argues forcefully that the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism cannot account for the extraordinary world of detailed information contained in every cell of the human body; nor for the workings of the human brain. For those willing to question the doctrine of neo-Darwinism, this is fascinating and very important material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Le_Fanu

---"Darwinism is the foundational theory of all atheistic, scientific and materialist doctrines...(etc) "

AppleSoup wrote:

http://www.thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/node/14...

---"Religious activities in Netherhall House and Grandpont House are entrusted to the Roman Catholic prelature of Opus Dei."

And he's not a creationist.

Okay, so he's just another gullible idiot who bought the same creationist bollox.(shrug)

---"instead he argues for a non-physical cosmic force which he claims could explain where consciousness originates from; he also claims it may explain many of the other mysteries unexplained by material science"

Explains HOW, exactly...?

Can somebody tell me how fundamentally different this enigmatic undefined unquantified "cosmic force" is from "Goddidit with magic", hm?

Cuz sure as hell sounds like the same stupendously ignorant appeal to some "profound mysterious power which holds the secret to ultimate knowledge", that will most assuredly, despite being "non-material" will somehow be of great significance to modern science, which by the way is ALL "materialistic".

So what we have here is yet another ignorant crank who some people think he has something relevant to say just because some silly old newspaper gave him an opinion column.

"Explains HOW, exactly...?"

Materialistic science, does not have the answer to how consciousness arises, it's called the mind body problem, scientists have been debating this for over 2000 years. No scientist has ever been able to work out how a physical brain can give rise to immaterial consciousness. Fanu in his book is open about this, he looks at a number of studies and concludes that there must be some kind of force at play which we have not located yet.

The main message of his book is that materialistic science can not address everything, there has to be something else at play.

Remember that sub-atomics particles are hypothetical, and beyond that we simply do not know. If you look at Quantum physics it goes further and talks about such theories as the chaos theory and invisible field theory forming particles.

Shadow wrote:

"Explains HOW, exactly...?"
Materialistic science, does not have the answer to how consciousness arises, it's called the mind body problem, scientists have been debating this for over 2000 years. No scientist has ever been able to work out how a physical brain can give rise to immaterial consciousness.

There's nothing "immaterial" about it. It's a VERY materialistic process which is made possible due to our VERY materialistic brain.

And I can prove it to you. If you'd like to submit yourself to scientific experimentation and allow me to open up your cranial cavity and scramble your brain (more) with a spaghetti blender I PROMISE you this will have a significant effect on your cognitive capability.

Shadow wrote:

Fanu in his book is open about this, he looks at a number of studies and concludes that there must be some kind of force at play which we have not located yet.
The main message of his book is that materialistic science can not address everything, there has to be something else at play.

Like I said: argument from incredulity. Some "mysterious power" which does some unknown thing in some unknown way at some unknown time. Very much like creationism in that regard.

Shadow wrote:

Remember that sub-atomics particles are hypothetical, and beyond that we simply do not know. If you look at Quantum physics it goes further and talks about such theories as the chaos theory and invisible field theory forming particles.

Except QM is testable. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, so if you're interested in knowing more about that side of things, go seek Polymath - he's your man. And he will explain to you why QM works, why it's not new age woo, why new-age woo-wers like to pretend it "proves" their nonsense claims, and what exactly about QM is misrepresented.

Shadow wrote:

"Explains HOW, exactly...?"
Materialistic science, does not have the answer to how consciousness arises, it's called the mind body problem, scientists have been debating this for over 2000 years. No scientist has ever been able to work out how a physical brain can give rise to immaterial consciousness. Fanu in his book is open about this, he looks at a number of studies and concludes that there must be some kind of force at play which we have not located yet.
The main message of his book is that materialistic science can not address everything, there has to be something else at play.
Remember that sub-atomics particles are hypothetical, and beyond that we simply do not know. If you look at Quantum physics it goes further and talks about such theories as the chaos theory and invisible field theory forming particles.

There are many answers that "materialistic science" did not explain...UNTIL they were explained by materialistic science. The "forces" which were not yet located eventually WERE located. "Materialistic Science" may or may not answer every question that exists...but there does not HAVE to be "something else at play"...other than natural forces.

"It's a VERY materialistic process which is made possible due to our VERY materialistic brain" And scientists have never been able to prove this.

Consciousness is immaterial - no science experiment has ever been able to prove consciousness come from a materialistic process. Now don't get all upset and agressive and spout out insults, this is just the way it is.

Lets take an example:

Look at a tree in front of you. You see it because it reflects light towards you. Then a sensory impulse enters your eye and causes a reaction on the retina in the eye.

An electrical impulse then travels down the optic nerve to the region of the brain that presides over perception.

So far the process has been entirely physical.

Now heres the important bit!, however, a mental image of the tree appears in my mind.

How has the physical brain produced an image in my mind? The image is not physical.

The brain and the mind are qualitatively different, so how have they managed to interact ?

The materialist explanation breaks down at this crucial point. The transition from physical brain to non-physical mind becomes a mystery to the materialist!.

Shadow wrote:

"It's a VERY materialistic process which is made possible due to our VERY materialistic brain" And scientists have never been able to prove this.
Consciousness is immaterial - no science experiment has ever been able to prove consciousness come from a materialistic process. Now don't get all upset and agressive and spout out insults, this is just the way it is.
Lets take an example:
Look at a tree in front of you. You see it because it reflects light towards you. Then a sensory impulse enters your eye and causes a reaction on the retina in the eye.
An electrical impulse then travels down the optic nerve to the region of the brain that presides over perception.
So far the process has been entirely physical.
Now heres the important bit!, however, a mental image of the tree appears in my mind.
How has the physical brain produced an image in my mind? The image is not physical.
The brain and the mind are qualitatively different, so how have they managed to interact ?
The materialist explanation breaks down at this crucial point. The transition from physical brain to non-physical mind becomes a mystery to the materialist!.

But not to you, right?

So how have they managed to interact? Don't forget to provide the mechanisms involved, a working testable hypothesus and objective evidence of your claims via the scientific method.

I've already done that with my brain-blender experiment. Subsequent brain-scans post blending will reveal a severe reduction or even total lack of brain activity. At which point you would need to come back as a ghost and demonstrate to us that you could still see the tree.

By all means, be the first guy on the entire planet out of all the "non-materialists" to scientifically demonstrate your "immaterial" claims (because "science can't explain X yet therefore POOF MAGIC ain't gonna cut it).

Actually I'm starting to believe you.

I mean, your head has a total lack of brain activity yet here you are using a computer.

:-)

The Dude wrote:

Actually I'm starting to believe you.
I mean, your head has a total lack of brain activity yet here you are using a computer.
:-)

I am sorry for my previous mean comments, I am now embracing creationism.

The Dude wrote:

If you'd like to submit yourself to scientific experimentation and allow me to open up your cranial cavity and scramble your brain (more) with a spaghetti blender I PROMISE you this will have a significant effect on your cognitive capability.

My sincerest apologies everyone, I totally retract this statement.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sorry for my previous mean comments, I am now embracing creationism.

And, apparently, lying. Jesus cries when you lie, you know?

Here is a question that demands an answer:

IF the universe came into existence as a Big Bang in a sterile environment without any life and...

IF the explosion sent massive amounts of sterile gases and molten metals expanding outward in a sterile environment and...

IF the sterile solar system and sterile earth were formed from some of these sterile materials then...

Could you please demonstrate for us all exactly how life could spontaneously arise from this sterile earth when NOBODY has been able to do so in any controlled lab experiments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_gene...

Sterile environments cannot create life! This has been established thru hundreds of scientific experiments. So the darwinists must overthrow SCIENCE in order to keep believing that life can spontaneously arise from any chemical stew or soup!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Darwinists demand that everybody must believe their absurd claim of abiogenesis when that theory has already been debunked by hundreds of scientific experiments. "When you rule out the impossible (abiogenesis), then whatever remains, however improbable (intelligent design) must be the truth." Logic defeats darwinism every time.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
And, apparently, lying. Jesus cries when you lie, you know?

You keep mentioning Jesus in your posts, would you like to provide some physical evidence for this Jesus you believe in?

Shadow wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep mentioning Jesus in your posts, would you like to provide some physical evidence for this Jesus you believe in?

What makes you think i do?

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
What makes you think i do?

instead of discussing jesus that would be off topic actually, I would actually like to know what you think about James Le Fanu