Ben Carson, Creationist: "Evolution encouraged by Satan"

[Alan C.]

Ben Carson: The World Was Created in 6 Days. Literally.

 

Ben Carson argued evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan

 

You can be a neurosurgeon and still believe in magic, demons, and fairy tales.

[Will Torbald]

Ben Carson: The World Was Created in 6 Days. Literally.

 

Ben Carson argued evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan

 

You can be a neurosurgeon and still believe in magic, demons, and fairy tales.

 

There's nothing intellectually rigorous about surgery or even medicine. It's just very hard to do, but it doesn't require the use of philosophical thinking. The brain is very good at compartmentalizing information and giving each topic its own set of rules, which in the case of the religious, it lives in its own island where the reason used for worldly skills isn't used. You just gotta make believe and the mansion in the sky is yours (and no one in your inner circle will ostracize you).

[Mister Mister]

Yes but apparently Secret Torture is okay with Jesus

[Alan C.]

Opposed to marijuana legalization.

 

Would 'intensify' war on drugs.

 

Would deploy 'stabilizing force' in Iraq.

 

[Jer]

I was called crazy by a woman who paid to see Ben Carson speak. 

[Alan C.]

Ben Carson says aversion to killing 'innocent women and children' [in war] is just 'political correctness'

[Alan C.]

The more that I read about Ben Carson, the more I'm reminded about this thread:

 

Christian Fundamentalism Permeates the Republican Party

[RyanBaxter]

Two weeks ago, if you asked who I wanted for President- Ben Carson would be my second preference.

His economic policies are great- wants a flat tax and getting rid of the minimum wage and Obamacare are things he wants to prioritize.

If anyone saw the fourth Republican debate with Fox Business News, Carson IMO along with my favorite Rand and other favorites Rubio and Cruz, I thought were great.

 

Now- I'm not so sure.

As much as I dislike the liberal media and the blue pill insanity of modern society, Carson came out as a man of faith- which I have no problem with whatsoever. If you believe in God, fair enough, it's a concept that is baffling to get to the problem of- a 'wicked problem' one could say.

But to say that evolution is by the Devil is just rebutting pure, cold, hard facts.

 

Science is one of the most incredible things we have in the world- because it allows us to find out about this thing called existence and the natural laws about it- whether it be physics and the idea of a reality, biology and the concept of human development or psychology and how the brain functions.

To ignore PROVEN empirical scientific studies that show that the Earth was formed far longer then 6000 years ago, is typical of the Right and why I became a liberal and then a Marxist in the first place when I first got into politics (though I've since taken the red pill and much more prefer the Right to the Left, though I do dislike a fair amount of the Right).

[dsayers]

Two weeks ago, if you asked who I wanted for President- Ben Carson would be my second preference.

His economic policies are great- wants a flat tax and getting rid of the minimum wage and Obamacare are things he wants to prioritize.

And what is the recourse if he doesn't pursue these once elected? Are these measures he could implement at will or is there a process by which other entities could obstruct his efforts in this regard? Do you accept that political voting is the initiation of the use of force?

[RyanBaxter]

And what is the recourse if he doesn't pursue these once elected? Are these measures he could implement at will or is there a process by which other entities could obstruct his efforts in this regard? Do you accept that political voting is the initiation of the use of force?

I'm basing this off his own views, not whether or not he would uphold his views and promises of implementing them.

Well, there is a process that requires any change in the law, with Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court, all being entities that decide upon what the law should be, so I would argue that they could not be implemented at will, as evidenced by Obama pushing for Gun Control, but the Supreme Court rejecting these measures and the NRA stepping in to ensure the Second Amendment is upheld.

And I am not sure what you mean by the last question.

[Ray H.]

Rothbard's case against the flat tax

[Darknecrosforte]

I hear people talk about facts of evolution a lot. Philosophically,  I am currently understanding the evidence as a somewhat acceptable working theory. The reasoning is as follows:

 

• Most of the evidence for the way these animals looked is based on the conceptual guesses of archaeological biologists based on limited fragments of previously living organisms. Remember the non-feathered raptors of older dinosaur depictions?
• As far as I know, there is no reliable way to show that fossils have contributed to the current gene pool. We take it for granted that successful mating and production of offspring is generally harder for non-humans in a predatory environment. 
• We have not observed evolution of a completely new species from a different one. We have seen adaptations that can be attributed to transgenic protein modifications of histones, point mutations, and deletions which are not even close to actual evolution.
• Isotopic-dating methods rely on comparisons of current levels of measured isotopes (rubidium, strontium, etc.) to CALCULATED reference values of what is thought to be the initial value of the isotope in the living creature. This is a huge assumption with a large room for error. The most important fact is that it is not based on an observation. 
• From what I have been learning in genetics, true evolution would require that the universe be much older than we currently project it to be based on thermodynamic kinetics of organic molecules and the ridiculously high failure rate of random reactions

These are the main reasons why it is difficult to consider evolution as more than a working theory. Science uses a testable theory to attempt explanations and innovations. It is important to recognize that as people who promote reasoning and evidence that we remember that religiosity also permeates "science" and that scientists must always demand for higher quality proof and be prepared to call bs on each other. Just giving a little pushback to those who use terms like "evolutionary facts". 

[Will Torbald]

I hear people talk about facts of evolution a lot. Philosophically,  I am currently understanding the evidence as a somewhat acceptable working theory. The reasoning is as follows:

 

• Most of the evidence for the way these animals looked is based on the conceptual guesses of archaeological biologists based on limited fragments of previously living organisms. Remember the non-feathered raptors of older dinosaur depictions?
• As far as I know, there is no reliable way to show that fossils have contributed to the current gene pool. We take it for granted that successful mating and production of offspring is generally harder for non-humans in a predatory environment. 
• We have not observed evolution of a completely new species from a different one. We have seen adaptations that can be attributed to transgenic protein modifications of histones, point mutations, and deletions which are not even close to actual evolution.
• Isotopic-dating methods rely on comparisons of current levels of measured isotopes (rubidium, strontium, etc.) to CALCULATED reference values of what is thought to be the initial value of the isotope in the living creature. This is a huge assumption with a large room for error. The most important fact is that it is not based on an observation. 
• From what I have been learning in genetics, true evolution would require that the universe be much older than we currently project it to be based on thermodynamic kinetics of organic molecules and the ridiculously high failure rate of random reactions

These are the main reasons why it is difficult to consider evolution as more than a working theory. Science uses a testable theory to attempt explanations and innovations. It is important to recognize that as people who promote reasoning and evidence that we remember that religiosity also permeates "science" and that scientists must always demand for higher quality proof and be prepared to call bs on each other. Just giving a little pushback to those who use terms like "evolutionary facts". 

 

It is understandable to have doubts when insufficient information is had. I don't think you are doubting evolution from the perspective of a well knowledged, thoroughly investigated, no nook left uncrannied person. It is almost impossible for a lay person to know and understand every single evidence for evolution without an academic knowledge of it, at which point you would be an evolutionary scientist. It would be as if I, with no knowledge of advanced mathematics, went to a physics college and yelled that general relativity is difficult to consider as more than a working theory. Since you don't have sufficient knowledge, it looks as if people believe this religiously - perhaps because you incorrectly assume that all the knowledge you have is all the knowledge there is, and others know as much as you - and since with the little knowledge that you have it would be difficult to believe, they must be religious! Indeed, if it were true that they only know as much as you, they would be. But they don't know as much as you. You know much less than scientists, actual evolutionary biologists, and all other branches of it. If you wish to know as much, learn it. http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

[Darknecrosforte]

It is understandable to have doubts when insufficient information is had. I don't think you are doubting evolution from the perspective of a well knowledged, thoroughly investigated, no nook left uncrannied person. It is almost impossible for a lay person to know and understand every single evidence for evolution without an academic knowledge of it, at which point you would be an evolutionary scientist. It would be as if I, with no knowledge of advanced mathematics, went to a physics college and yelled that general relativity is difficult to consider as more than a working theory. Since you don't have sufficient knowledge, it looks as if people believe this religiously - perhaps because you incorrectly assume that all the knowledge you have is all the knowledge there is, and others know as much as you - and since with the little knowledge that you have it would be difficult to believe, they must be religious! Indeed, if it were true that they only know as much as you, they would be. But they don't know as much as you. You know much less than scientists, actual evolutionary biologists, and all other branches of it. If you wish to know as much, learn it. http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

 

Three years of relatively rigorous study of biological and chemical sciences about 50 hours a week including time spent in class with 8 weeks of break total per year is not too deficient in terms of basic understanding of the majority of evidence out there. I am saying the evidence is not nearly as strong as is commonly thought. There is a lot of imagination required to come up with these models and theories instead of say, producing a dinosaur and studying it. There is also a lot of misconception of what a scientist is or what "scientific authority" is. I AM a scientist and soon to be US medical student.

 

I have quickly read through your link and would like to point out that listing a various observations and declaring "Evolution proved" is not rigorous as I have already pointed out. "Oh look, Mendelian genetics! Evolution is real because traits are passed on". This is the nature of most of what you posted. It does nothing to address the issues of extrapolating INITIAL isotope concentrations in once-living fossilized creatures. We do not know if our reference values are correct. This has huge potential to throw off models based on such numbers.

 

I simply recognize that there is a conflict of interest in evolutionary science, especially since it is the most government-funded and "young" branch of science. Most of biology and its continued funding depends on it being true. Other "harder" sciences are not reliant on it at all. Physicists, chemists, and even biochemists do not need evolution to maintain their credibility and funding. I'm not saying evolution is false. I am saying it is a theory.

[Will Torbald]

Three years of relatively rigorous study of biological and chemical sciences about 50 hours a week including time spent in class with 8 weeks of break total per year is not too deficient in terms of basic understanding of the majority of evidence out there. I am saying the evidence is not nearly as strong as is commonly thought. There is a lot of imagination required to come up with these models and theories instead of say, producing a dinosaur and studying it. There is also a lot of misconception of what a scientist is or what "scientific authority" is. I AM a scientist and soon to be US medical student.

 

I have quickly read through your link and would like to point out that listing a various observations and declaring "Evolution proved" is not rigorous as I have already pointed out. "Oh look, Mendelian genetics! Evolution is real because traits are passed on". This is the nature of most of what you posted. It does nothing to address the issues of extrapolating INITIAL isotope concentrations in once-living fossilized creatures. We do not know if our reference values are correct. This has huge potential to throw off models based on such numbers.

 

I simply recognize that there is a conflict of interest in evolutionary science, especially since it is the most government-funded and "young" branch of science. Most of biology and its continued funding depends on it being true. Other "harder" sciences are not reliant on it at all. Physicists, chemists, and even biochemists do not need evolution to maintain their credibility and funding. I'm not saying evolution is false. I am saying it is a theory.

 

Great, at least you know biology. But you forgot to bolden the "actual evolutionary biology" next to scientists. You also forgot to read all of the article, and all the sources of the each point, then you forgot to integrate all of them under one theory to explain all of them at the same time. Because only evolution does that. How easy it is to dismiss it without actually studying it, so easy. One simple misconception you make is that fossils are dated with the isotope concentrations inside the fossil when in fact what arechaeologists do is date the rocks and samples around the fossil of the same geological age. Yes, biochemists need to understand evolution because only though evolution does biochemisty makes sense. A physicist that doesn't believe in evolution is completely lost in the middle ages. Nowadays even physicists have documentaries about evolution, because physics underlies all of science. It is a disgrace that a medical student is saying "it is a theory" as if he didn't know what a scientific theory means. And I know you know what it means, you can't be that ignorant. I expect that from religious people, not students of science, or worse, people who will have other's lives at their hands.

 

[dsayers]

I'm basing this off his own views, not whether or not he would uphold his views and promises of implementing them.

Well, there is a process that requires any change in the law, with Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court, all being entities that decide upon what the law should be, so I would argue that they could not be implemented at will, as evidenced by Obama pushing for Gun Control, but the Supreme Court rejecting these measures and the NRA stepping in to ensure the Second Amendment is upheld.

And I am not sure what you mean by the last question.

"Political voting is the initiation of the use of force." Do you accept this to be true? You had said that at one point you were going to give somebody permission to initiate the use of force against everybody based on what they said. Here, you're saying that what somebody says in that context is meaningless because they don't have to follow through and might not be able to anyways.

[Alan C.]

Ben Carson would 'shoot down Russian planes' if they entered US-imposed no-fly zone, and then says, "Whatever happens next we deal with it."

 

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Great, at least you know biology. But you forgot to bolden the "actual evolutionary biology" next to scientists. You also forgot to read all of the article, and all the sources of the each point, then you forgot to integrate all of them under one theory to explain all of them at the same time. Because only evolution does that. How easy it is to dismiss it without actually studying it, so easy. One simple misconception you make is that fossils are dated with the isotope concentrations inside the fossil when in fact what arechaeologists do is date the rocks and samples around the fossil of the same geological age. Yes, biochemists need to understand evolution because only though evolution does biochemisty makes sense. A physicist that doesn't believe in evolution is completely lost in the middle ages. Nowadays even physicists have documentaries about evolution, because physics underlies all of science. It is a disgrace that a medical student is saying "it is a theory" as if he didn't know what a scientific theory means. And I know you know what it means, you can't be that ignorant. I expect that from religious people, not students of science, or worse, people who will have other's lives at their hands.

 

 

I assume you are talking about common descent, in that case it is a historical hypothesis, not a theory.

 

To be precise, we are talking about the historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps.

 

 

There is no biology being done which requires evolution as a premise in its hypothesis, and without which premise the science could not proceed. To claim that it is fundamental and imply that it is necessary to biological science is a genetic fallacy. Biologists by and large try to understand existing systems and structures; what they’re made of, how they’re constructed, and how they function; how they evolved or history of the fossil record 200000 years ago, or extrapolatory hypotheses about entities which do not exist in the current time frame is beside the point. Stem Cell biology is booming due to observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, not by attachment to evolution. As you are trying to make him believe this fundamental 'truth', you want to shame him into thinking that he is anti-science and therefore irrational if he doesn't accept evolution, you are trying to ignore the existence of flaws that are required in order to fill out the entire worldview, including the inability to answer the question of what life actually is, what the source of first life was, why life perpetuates itself despite being subject to entropy, what is the source of mind, rationality, agency, and self awareness, along with many other questions. It is patently false that it is not fundamental at all when it can't answer the fundamental issues.