A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

But none of your flimsy quotes support this agnostic claim. Previously, I said Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and ReligionSource for the Spinoza Reference Spinoza believed nature possessed a mind - he was a lunatic in this regard. Why neither you or Einstein can connect the brilliance of nature with an invisible Designer is easily explained by the dogged desire not to come under His authority - as would obligate anyone who truly did. In other words, you want to remain and be the boss = the original sin of Lucifer that God would not forgive him of (evidence of his invisible presence). We all are guilty of this natural evil desire. Christianity delivers one from its hold.The links on Einstein reveal a person with ordinary atheist beliefs. An agnostic is a person who is attempting to hide his atheism. The term was coined by one of the most famous atheists of all time - T.H. Huxley.If you define agnostic as "don't know" then how is it that most of these persons speak quite authoritatively on the very subject that they are not supposed to know ? This is rhetorical. Or if your definition is "unable to know" this still leaves this person exposed as an atheist since most of this type hold beliefs that atheists are known to hold.No educated person can possibly claim prolong (genuine don't know) agnostic status since it is "impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion." I responded to YOUR post content here: I did address the subject that YOU initiated. This renders your first blue box comment to be wholly inaccurate and out of order. How is responding to what you wrote "divisive" or not "contributing" ? 2nd Time:

​

I ask again in reference to your blue box quote above: Who or what determines or prescribes your evolutionary hypothesis ?Atheists have to say chance, which you have righfully lambasted. We know you assert all processes were determined, by what or whom ? You have no grudge but then, you list in the next breath how Godfather Dembski has, by proxy, persecuted you. I just want to know WHY Dembski had you banned ? These are not the words of a man holding a grudge ?I am sorry, those credentials qualify Dembski as a scientist - not a matter of opinion. Anyone who says otherwise must treat recognized evolutionary authorities, who have their degree in philosophy the same way.Professor Davison:If you don't want to discuss things with me just say so or ignore my posts.Ray Martinez

I already explained why I don't want to discuss these things. They have absolutely nothing to do with my presence here. I was invited here to defend my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, not to engage in idiotic metaphysical nonsense with some fundamentalist Bible-Banger who has just called Albert Einstein a liar. If you want to find out why Wembski banned me, ask Wembski. He won't answer you.You see I and my several sources are not allowed to exist by latter day egomaniacs like Dichard Rawkins, Gephen J. Stould, Mernst Ayr and their counterparts on the other side of the ideological fence, Jillip Phonson, Richael Muse, Wonathan Jells and especially the self-appointed, self-annointed leader of that stupid cult, Dilliam Wembski, not a real scientist in the whole lot.My name is no longer to be mentioned at either Uncommon Descent by the edict of Reverend Wembski or at Panda's Thumb as decreed by Esley Welsberry. Falan Ox has admitted that if he were to mention my name he would be banned at Welsberry's precious little inner sanctum known as "After The Bar Closes." That place is the intellectual bottom of the barrel as any fool can see who observes what goes on there. It is nothing but a glorious gaggle of gossiping geese. While they relish dumping on Dilliam Wembski and Spravid Dinger they are afraid to mention my name. Der Fuhrer, Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry has made that quite clear. His chief goon, Falan Ox, has admitted as much.Well I am not afraid to mention all their names and to identify them as the ethical. moral and intellectual cowards that they all are. Not one of these lightweight luminaries has ever contributed a thing toward the progress of evolutionary science except to inhibit it and I intend to use every opportunity at my disposal to inform the whole world about it. That includes "showcase" forum or any other venue where I am still allowed to speak. Both sides in this mindless debate are full of it right up to their nostrils and I am making waves to the best of my ability. Count on it!Who, or more accurately, what is next I wonder?It is hard to believe isn't it?

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

This is not true since you initiated that you did want to discuss these things here: You can certainly change your mind but you cannot deny that YOU initiated what I responded to. This is now the third time I ask the same question about your PEH:Who or what determines or perscribes your theory ?You have voluminously invoked Einstein's determinacy. The same corresponds with teleological principles. Einstein was an atheist who, like Spinoza, believed nature possessed a mind. An inantimate non-sentient expanse of physical reality possessed a mind ? We know these concepts come straight out of ancient Greece where the daughter of Zeus ("Dike" pronounced "deekay" root of all English words: "righteousness" and "justification" ) enforced his will. Since neither oracle could speak powerful persons (Spinoza, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Dawkins, Quetzal, Davison) spoke for them. I did no such thing and I produced two very reputable links to support my claims. You have showered insults at the drop of a hat - very unbecoming behavior for a man of your professional stature. You are the one acting like a Fundamentalist who has had his faith profaned.You evade everything in others posts that require you to do some work and never do you quote your opponent, which tells me you are simply in love with yourself and like hearing yourself speak. I urge you to cease with the unprovoked insults as it betrays an inability to refute.Dr. Gene Scott: "Morons have no inferiority complexes....intelligent persons do....Einstein was so conscious of his inferiorities that he hated to be seen in public."Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : more spelling

If my distinguished predecesors had not been such perfect gentlemen Darwinism and Fundamentalism would have both gone down the tubes long ago. I am no gentleman. Got that? And you did call Einstein a liar when you claimed he was an atheist. I don't sit still for liars and you have proved you are one. We are through communicating as I am with anyone else who refuses to address the subject of this thread. I have another paper to ready for publication and I don't have time to engage in this sort of deliberate mindless, Machiavellian evasion of the topic at hand.Now lets hear some answers to my challenges. Shall we or shall we not?

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

I know.Anyone can play this act in order to evade unpleasant questions and issues. I am surely not impressed or intimidated.Professor Davison: What or who determines or perscribes your theory ?You have wrecked atheist ideology (chance) parading as scientific fact. Darwinism is true by philosophic definition (only naturalistic conclusions are eligible to be scientific fact regardless if its true or not). Thats the answer I got in my thread when I asked them why is the process blind...."It is science" said the parrots. If the process had sight then that ruins their goal of eliminating God. Instead, their process is blind and guess what ? They own the exclusive right to own and operate all Darwinian seeing eye dog franchises. Darwinian minds guide the process...."natural selection-did-it" is the one answer thats fits all questions and problems. They have replaced God with themselves = evidence of Biblical claim that the original sin of Lucifer and his goal of enticing us to do the same is true and is having great success.Now you come along and give the process purpose but deny God. You are now replacing the Darwinists with yourself.Prof. Davison is God.Meet the new boss same as the old boss.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : doesn't really matter Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

That is a cheap shot. I have never denied God and you would know that if you have read anything of my work. Neither did any of my sources including Einstein. I have postulated only that which was required which is that there HAD TO HAVE BEEN one or more Gods. That is all that is required by the PEH. Now you are degenerating into name calling and insult so I am through responding to you. Trust me. That goes for anyone else who practices similar tactics. If you are not prepared to talk about the substance of my PEH, stay out of the discussion as you are contributing absolutely nothing of value by your personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.That is exactly what DaveScot has been doing wherever he finds me. I have had a bellyfull of that kind of low class behavior. Frankly I think the adminstration should remove you from this thread but that is obviously their decision alone so I won't call for it. I really don't care that much anymore. Just as I and my sources do not exist so now you don't either. You have given me no other choice. Sorry about that!

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

I asked you what or who determines or perscribes your theory and on the 3rd attempt you finally answered: Prof. Davison: I have never denied GodHowever, in this thread it appears there MAY be a contradiction....can you please explain ? All of the material below can be confirmed in this link: Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with tile consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature."” Letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797 My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215 I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.” Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
Einstein's Religion My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955 I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.The SoulIn their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.News Wire » Internet Infidels About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet”In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123. We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.Spinoza and Einstein It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem ” the most important of all human problems.Spinoza and EinsteinEinstein held stereotypical atheistic beliefs. He, like Spinoza believed the universe and nature had a mind and that was his God. In other words, your idol was a nut.Ray Martinez

Of course and I agree completely. Much more important, what does any of this have to do with the subject of this thread which is a new hypothesis for organic evolution? We are through Herepton whoever that really is. Got that? Write that down! Go peddle your metaphysical drivel on a blog for that purpose. I am a scientist not a bloody mystic.I am bored and any fool can see why!

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

prescribed evolution vs evolution by Darwinian chance
twins fated by their genes vs people deciding freely
semimeiotic sexless reproduction vs sexual selection by female choiceAs before, you seem to be consistently avoiding any explanation that has several possible outcomes, any explanation in terms of free behaviour.Then you at last acknowledge God, who can act freely, but then you also basically leave God out of your theory.I'm sorry, I don't have a labrotory, so I can't test your semi-meiotic hypothesis. That is basically the only possibly real science you offer IMO. The rest of your theories being more revealing of your personal dislike of any concept of free behaviour whatsoever.I don't think Einstein is on the side of ultra-predeterminism, because actually Bohr was on that side, and Einstein argued against Bohr.I've seen another old scientist similar like you on TV some years ago. There the accomplished scientist was, happily talking to the interviewer about his outstanding career, and the way the universe is. Then he wandered of to the subject of determinism, and all of a sudden about 20 creases appeared on his face all at once. With his face looking like that, he went to talk about how we must admit that maybe there isn't any free behaviour at all, maybe we can't choose at all, maybe every single one of the zillions of atoms is predetermined without a possible alternative etc. etc.Obviously this scientist for decades had disciplined himself to solely and efficiently think in terms of cause and effect for his job, and neglected to think in terms of free behaviour.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Do you feel better now that you too have successfully avoided the subject of this forum? Who else wants to change the subject? I am still bored.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

From your paper:"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between ?either randomness or the supernatural,? a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should have the final say. (Grasse, page 107)."So don't accuse me of bringing up a philosphical irrellevancy. This issue between determinacy and indeterminacy your bring up yourself explicitly in your paper.In the words of Richard Dawkins "Chance is the enemy of science." (The Blind Watchmaker). Isn't Dawkins quite on your side of things mr Davison?You have misaprehended what atheists such as ultra-darwinist Dawkins like about Darwinism. Natural selection theory represents a mechanization of the choice concept, and this is what any atheist appreciates much. They can basically use the language of choices, but not have to admit any actual choice with a spiritual owner at all, since it is all mechanical.Especially in regards to natural selection fashioning social behaviour or morality atheists appreciate Darwinism. It allows them to chuck religion by concocting some just so story about the evolution of social behaviour, and decide about their own values in the context of that just-so story.So I will simply charge again that you simply don't understand how to describe any free behaviour scientifically. Quite clearly you have excluded any free behaviour as per definition from science.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Good for you and just what has this to do with my challenges to the Darwinian position? Nothing of course, just more metaphysical drivel. I remain bored and disillusioned with the calibre of the responses here. Why was I invited here if not to criticize the facts as represented in my paper? So far they have yet to be even identified except by myself. I cannot defend that which is not being even mentioned.It is hard to believe isn't it?

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

What or who determines or perscribes your theory ?If God is endorsed what is your source for information about Him or It ?These are basic questions of life that everyone wonders what others believe and why they believe it.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : who cares

Then cut all reference to philosophy from your paper, if you don't want it to be adressed.Darwinism is currently moving towards naive predeterminism again. For instance I saw some paper which argues that natural selection theory is consistent with saltationism in relation to findings about controlgenes, also Dawkins recently talks a lot about isolated populations having highly similar evolutions independently.So it may well be that in some time the Darwinist discipline simply co-opts your postion to such a large extent, so to make your weak reference to God on the side of your theory meaningless.Obviously you are just refusing any evidence of any free behaviour whatsoever beforehand, so it's not credible to me that you come to your position by just following the evidence reasonably.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Sorry but I have no comment because you have in no way addressed the substance of the PEH. Until you do I have nothing further to say to you or anyone else who chooses to engage in philosophical matters which have no place in science anyway. There is an enormous amount of evidence accumulating that phylogeny, like ontogeny has proceeded entirely from within. Apparently that offends you. That is unfortunate. Your comments fall on deaf ears. I also see no evidence for a living God. Maybe that offends you too. That is also completely beside the point.

---

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."