Show Me a Random Post

Finding yourself in lock down with ever decreasing possibilities for conversation? Click on the button below to retrieve a random post from this blog. Use the post as a topic for your conversation. If it fails to generate sufficient interaction split into two groups to argue for or against the topic in the post but assign members randomly so some in the “for” group have to argue against and some in the “against” group have to argue for the topic. Click the button and have some fun!

This post will accept comments if you find your conversation generates questions for Dr. Wile.  Be sure to include the title of the post you are asking about in your comment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Show Me a Random Post

  1. Kurt Haldeman says:

    I thought I would try this out just for fun, as I love your blog here. I tried it three times, and three different posts popped up. Unfortunately, they were ones I had read before. I fear that, no matter how many times I try, it will probably bring up posts I had already read, as I have followed you for a looooong time. Thanks for the diversion, though, even if it was momentary! 😀

  2. Dinoid says:

    I have read your argument on Fisher’s ‘fundamental theorem of evolution’ and I must say I agree that Darwinism is not the answer to everything. However I dispute your summary that suggests the answer comes from some divine influence.
    I have been researching the supernatural for over 50 years and my conclusions are not based on a whim. The mistake that you and others are making is comparing life as a diversity of species, when in fact evolution is one life, one energy. The energy of a system, plus its kinetic energy, is proportional to its function. Life taken as a one energy system answers all the unexplainable.
    The complexity of genetic material that is needed for the variety of life on Earth brings many problems. the most baffling come from the sexual transmitted chromosomes. Each chromosome comes from different individuals and produces accordingly, but what happens within the eukaryote cells when environmental changes appear on the horizon? Mutations are then the order of the day. These changes can take a thousand years or a million; what regulates this mutation of the species? Instead of jumping the gun and in a desperate attempt to find an answer that seems unattainable, we reach for the supernatural instead of looking for the obvious. The obvious is the species themselves – who knows better?
    When mutations occur to suit environment changes, the species mutating has to fit in with all life and not just for its own needs, otherwise the mutation could be more harmful than beneficial.
    Dr Donald Hoffman discovered that all life, including us, cannot see accurately; a lot of what we take for reality is just an illusion. ‘Dreams of the future’ are one of my favourite illusions perpetrated by nature. Though they give the illusion of seeing into the future; the truth could not be any more different. Looking at these dreams and seeing accurately, they are telling us we are one life and one energy and like all energy, that is a biological energy also, has to obey the same rules of nature.

    • Jay Wile says:

      I think you misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that because Darwinism is not a good explanation for the diversity of life, then there must be a Designer. In fact, Darwinism is a great explanation for how organisms adapt to changes in their surroundings under certain conditions. However, genetics tells us that there are severe limits to the variation of a genome, and as a result, there are severe limits to what evolution can do. What I am saying is that a Designer is the best explanation for the data we have. As Dr. John O’Keefe, NASA astronomer, put it: “If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (Heeren, F., Show Me God, Searchlight Publications, 1995, p. 200)

      It is also not true that “The energy of a system, plus its kinetic energy, is proportional to its function.” First, kinetic energy is a form of energy, so when you say “The energy of a system…”, you are already referring to its kinetic energy. There is no need to add it. Second, the energy of a system is not proportional to its function. The organization of the system’s energy is proportional to its function. You can have as much energy as you want, but if it is evenly distributed over a system, it cannot do any work. Work requires a reservoir of high energy, a reservoir of low energy, and a way in which energy can travel from the high-energy reservoir to the low-enery one. A small amount of energy, well organized, has a lot more function than a large amount of disorganized energy.

      I agree that Dr. Hoffman thinks that life cannot accurately see reality. However, he didn’t “discover” that. He has some computer simulations that indicate our need to survive requires us to be blind to certain aspects of reality. However, those simulations are heavily dependent on the assumptions used to produce them. Different assumptions lead to completely different conclusions. Also, his understanding of quantum mechanics is flawed. You might want to read this article to understand some of the many problems with Dr. Hoffman’s thesis.

  3. Bruce Burns says:

    Wow, I read the above article, and I became aware that I am clearly not equipped to even respond to any of the arguments presented. Perhaps that is because I deserted academe prior to receiving a PhD.

    I am pretty sure there is objective reality all around me, that God (yes, that God) has chosen me as His own while granting me free will with which to make a choice in that regard, and that there is way more stuff I know nothing about (like why electrons produce an interference pattern in Young’s double slit experiment unless there is an observer, then they behave like particles)that stuff I know about. This is scary because I teach chemistry and physics, and undoubtedly am projecting my ignorance on young “skulls full of mush.”

    Fortunately, I got my hands on a copy of the New Testament and found 1 Cor 13:11-12. “For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now, I know in part, but then I will know fully even as I am fully known.”

    That may help explain why we cannot agree on much of anything including our existence, oh, wait, other people’s existence. The one assertion I feel qualified to make is that models are woefully inadequate when it comes to either private or public policy (say, global warming, pandemics, etc.) I have determined to ask God about many truths when I see Him in heaven (possibly as soon as today) but I fear that I will be so delighted just to be there, that I may forget to do so when the time comes.

    Happy Easter!

Comments are closed.