Pseudoscience is still on the march?

 

And still yet more on darwinism's Origin of Life issues.

 

What could possiby go wrong?

 

The science of doing science needs to advance?

 

Behind enemy lines

 

OoL science is a study in failure?

 

On Isaac Newton's Arianism

 Yes, Sir Isaac Newton held beliefs aligned with Arian theology, though he kept these views private due to their controversial nature. Arianism, based on the teachings of Arius, denies the full divinity of Jesus Christ, asserting that the Son is a created being, subordinate to God the Father. Newton’s extensive theological writings, including manuscripts like A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, reveal his rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. He argued that the concept of the Trinity was not supported by early Christian texts and was a later corruption of scripture, a position central to Arian thought.

Newton’s studies of early Church history and biblical texts led him to conclude that passages like 1 John 5:7, which supports the Trinity, were later interpolations. He believed the original Christian doctrine was closer to Arianism, emphasizing the unity and supremacy of God the Father. However, as a fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a public figure, Newton was cautious, sharing his views only with close associates to avoid persecution, as Arianism was considered heretical in 17th-century England.

His theological notes, many of which were unpublished during his lifetime, confirm his sympathy for Arian ideas, though he never formally declared himself an Arian. Instead, he framed his beliefs as a return to a purer, original Christianity. For further details, Newton’s manuscripts at the National Library of Israel or the Keynes Collection at Cambridge provide primary source material.

The origin of life vs. Darwin

 

Darwinism's third way problem?

 

The thumb print of JEHOVAH in the cell

 

The king of titans is a human engine?

 

Grok on open theism.

 Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

God’s Knowledge and the Future: Open theism posits that the future is not entirely fixed or exhaustively known by God. Instead, God knows all possibilities and probabilities but leaves room for human free choices, making the future partly "open" or undetermined.

Divine-Human Relationship: God interacts dynamically with creation, responding to human actions in real-time rather than following a predetermined script. This makes prayer, decisions, and actions meaningful, as they can influence outcomes.

Biblical Basis: Proponents cite scriptures where God appears to change His mind (e.g., Exodus 32:14), expresses surprise (e.g., Jeremiah 3:7), or tests people to discover their choices (e.g., Genesis 22:12), suggesting a relational rather than deterministic view.Critiques: Critics, often from classical theism (e.g., Calvinism), argue it undermines God’s sovereignty or omniscience, claiming an all-knowing God must know the future exhaustively. Open theists counter that God’s omniscience includes all that is knowable, but an open future is inherently unknowable in detail.

Key Figures: Theologians like Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd have been influential in developing and defending open theism.It’s a minority view within Christianity, often debated for its implications on divine providence, prophecy, and human responsibility. If you want a deeper dive into specific arguments, biblical texts, or criticisms, let me know!

On evolution and the design debate.

The greenest tech of all vs. Darwinism

 

No intelligence allowed?

 

Darwinism does not have enough time to find this needle in this haystack?

 

File under "well said" CXIX

"The end of Life is to become like God,and the Soul following God will become like him."

Socrates.

Grok on the history of EVs

 The earliest electric vehicles (EVs) date back to the 19th century, predating modern gasoline cars. Here’s a concise overview:1830s: Robert Anderson, a Scottish inventor, is credited with creating one of the first crude electric carriages around 1832–1839, powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.

1840s–1880s: Inventors like Thomas Davenport and Gustave Trouvé developed early electric motors and vehicles. In 1881, Trouvé showcased an electric tricycle in Paris.

1880s–1890s: Rechargeable lead-acid batteries spurred EV development. In 1884, Thomas Parker built an electric car in England. By the late 1880s, companies like the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company in the U.S. produced electric taxis.

1890s–1900s: EVs peaked in popularity, especially in urban areas, due to their quiet operation and ease of use compared to steam or gasoline vehicles. In 1900, about 28% of U.S. cars were electric, with manufacturers like Studebaker and Columbia producing models.

Decline: By the 1910s, EVs waned due to limited battery range (20–40 miles), high costs, and the rise of affordable gasoline cars like the Ford Model T, coupled with improved road infrastructure favoring longer-range vehicles.

EVs saw a revival in the late 20th century with models like GM’s EV1 (1996), but the modern era began with the Tesla Roadster (2008) and Nissan Leaf (2010), driven by advancements in lithium-ion batteries.

Steven Meyer on the debacle in which Origin of Life science finds itself and the case for desgn.

 

ID triumps despite the scopes trial

 Despite Scopes Effect, Intelligent Design Flourishes

Andrew McDiarmid

The Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925 has cast a long shadow over the evolution debate in the last century, thanks in large part to the Hollywood film Inherit the Wind, which caricatured the trial and promoted stereotypes that still persist today. On a new episode of ID the Future, I continue a conversation with Dr. Casey Luskin about the long history of the Scopes effect in science and how intelligent design has managed to flourish in spite of it.

In Part 2, Dr. Luskin explains that even as Scopes stereotypes were crystallizing in the public consciousness, skepticism about the power of Darwin’s selection/mutation mechanism continued to mount, and not just in intelligent design circles. Prominent evolutionary biologists were also voicing concern about the adequacy of the modern synthesis of Darwin’s theory. And as those concerns grew louder, so did the desperate response from committed Darwinists. Luskin talks about a surge of persecutions that have been leveled against any scientist who dares to question neo-Darwinism. 

But, as Luskin notes, the intelligent design research project has gone from strength to strength in the last three decades. Much progress has been made in building a strong, cumulative case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth. So as the Scopes centennial gets marked with fanfare in 2025, do ID scientists get a seat at the table? Or is the spirit of Scopes still hampering scientific progress and academic freedom today? Luskin has answers. Download the podcast or listen to it here.