Evolutionists make truly wild assumptions to fill the gaps in their hypotheses. Check out Richard Dawkins’s thesis that DNA originated spontaneously in inorganic mud crystals.
Richard Dawkins is one of today’s most widely known defenders of Darwinian evolution. Professor Dawkins goes beyond defending evolution, using extravagant language to attack the personal qualifications of anyone who questions Darwinian evolution. Of such people, he opined, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
Needless to say, as a believer in evolution, professor Dawkins regards himself as not ignorant and not stupid. Yet, some of his speculations, to a non-believer in evolution, appear to be a few cards short of a full deck.
In Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis, and in the many variants since 1859, the fundamental thrust, indeed the starting point for Darwin himself, was to disprove what he called the “damnable doctrine” of God as the Creator of the cosmos and of life on earth. All events, for the evolutionists, are attributable to material causes, without the intervention of a Creator existing before and outside the universe.
Because the minds of evolutionists cannot conceive of God as existence preceding essence, for them He cannot exist. Their only reality is the tangible, sensible world of processes with material causes that the human brain is capable of fathoming and presumptively controlling.
For evolution to stand on its own two feet, Darwinians must be able to explain how life was created by purely material factors. This they singularly fail to do. And without a materialistic beginning of life, there can be no purely materialistic, Darwinian evolution of life forms.
Darwinians therefore gloss over the origin of life and focus instead on the hypothetical mechanism of natural selection, through billions of tiny, random modifications over eons, which might plausibly have differentiated a single, original elemental life form into all known life forms of today. To date there have been only unsuccessful attempts in chemistry labs to create life from inorganic chemicals. Every theory attempting to explain the origin of life has collided with contradictory facts in chemistry and geology.
In The Blind Watchmaker, in the chapter titled "Origins and Miracles," professor Dawkins deals with the origin of life and of the presumed inception of the evolutionary process itself.
Most text books, he writes, favor the ‘primeval soup’ concept in which lots of chemicals got mixed up at the beginning of planet earth, and life just happened.
It seems probable that the atmosphere of Earth before the coming of life was like that of other planets which are still lifeless. There was no oxygen . . . Chemists know that oxygen-free climates like this tend to foster the spontaneous synthesis of organic chemicals.
However, this standard version, taught to students of biology today, appears to be erroneous in its postulation of an oxygen-free atmosphere before the creation of life. As noted in "Jesus vs. Darwin: Points 1 and 2:"
For example, the “primordial soup” hypothesis for the origin of life entirely by chance, proposed by the atheistic Soviet biochemist A. I. Oparin in 1924, requires that there be no free oxygen in the atmosphere, otherwise the postulated sequential combinations of chemicals would screech to a halt as oxygen, in effect, would “rust” the process. Geologists, unfortunately for the evolutionists, since then have found clear evidence in ancient rocks that there were significant amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere at the postulated time of the “primordial soup.”
Professor Dawkins’s preferred hypothesis, however, is not the ‘primeval soup’ one, but the ‘inorganic mineral’ theory of Glasgow chemist Graham Cairns-Smith.
Cairns-Smith’s view of the DNA/protein machinery is that it probably came into existence relatively recently, perhaps as recently as three billion years ago . . . Although the chemistry of modern Earth-bound life is all carbon-chemistry, this may not be true all over the universe, and it may not always have been true on this Earth. Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.
Cairns-Smith’s guess is that the original replicators were crystals of inorganic materials, such as those found in clays and muds . . . Since it is replication we are interested in, the first thing we must know is, can crystals replicate their structure? . . . Sometimes crystals spontaneously start to form in solution. At other times they have to be ‘seeded’, either by particles of dust or by small crystals dropped in from elsewhere . . . Flat crystals give rise to a population of flat crystals. Chunky crystals give rise to a population of chunky crystals. If there is a tendency for one type of crystal to grow and split more quickly than the other, we shall have a simple kind of natural selection. But the process still lacks a vital ingredient in order to give rise to evolutionary change. That ingredient is hereditary variation, or something equivalent to it. Instead of just two types of crystals, there must be a whole range of minor variants that form lineages of like shape, and that sometimes ‘mutate’ to produce new shapes.
Crystals grow like rows of flowers . . . But – and here is the vital point – there are flaws . . . And once a flaw has appeared, it tends to be copied as subsequent layers of crystal encrust themselves on top of it . . .
What DNA has over normal crystals is a means by which its information can be read. Leaving aside the problem of read-out, you could easily devise an arbitrary code whereby flaws in the atomic structure of the crystal denote binary numbers . . .
The role of clay and other mineral crystals in the theory is to act as the original ‘low-tech’ replicators, the ones that were eventually replaced by high-tech DNA . . .
There is still the missing ingredient of ‘power:’ the nature of the replicators must somehow have influenced their own likelihood of being replicated . . . Whether the original low-tech replicators were mineral crystals or organic forerunners of DNA itself, we may guess that the ‘power’ they exercised was direct and elementary, like stickiness . . .
We aren’t suggesting that clays ‘want’ to go on existing . . . suppose that a variant of clay improves its own chances of being deposited, by damming up streams . . . A succession of such shallow pools proliferates along the length of any stream that happens to be ‘infected’ by seeding crystals of this kind of clay . . . The clay dries and cracks in the sun, and the top layers are blown off as dust. Each dust particle inherits the characteristic defect structure of the parent clay that did the damming, the structure that gave it its damming properties. By analogy with the genetic information raining down on the canal from my willow tree, we could say that the dust carries ‘instructions’ for how to dam streams and eventually make more dust . . . The crystalline structure of each particle of dust is copied from the clay in the parent stream. It passes on that crystalline structure to the daughter stream, where it grows and multiplies and finally sends ‘seeds’ out again . . .
Now if the alteration makes the crystal either less or more efficient in the damming/drying/erosion cycle, this will affect how many copies it has in subsequent ‘generations’ . . . There are many opportunities for successive ‘generations’ to become progressively ‘better’ at getting passed to subsequent generations. In other words, there are many opportunities for rudimentary cumulative selection to get going.
Now to move on to the next stage of the argument, some lineages of crystals might happen to catalyse the synthesis of new substances that assist in their passage down the ‘generations’ . . . Cairns-Smith believes that organic molecules were prominent among non-replicating ‘tools’ of his inorganic replicators.
Notice in the foregoing, and in most writings by evolutionists, the frequent use of words like “may,” “probably,” “could have been,” “we could imagine,” “we may guess,” “must somehow,” and “must have been.”
Notice also that professor Dawkins begins with a tangential glance at the ‘primeval soup’ thesis as the mechanism by which life just happened on earth, but then he slides into the origin of DNA as the information technology by which genetic information is created, accumulated, and passed along to later generations. He never specifically comes to grips with the origin of life itself, the all-important first step in evolutionary hypothesizing.
Again, in the quotations above he casually assumes that, after clay crystals ‘evolve,’ organic chemicals (the building blocks of living tissue, which evolutionists acknowledge did not exist when earth was formed) are handily, by chance, available to be catalyzed by his ‘evolved’ crystals. This is circular reasoning on the order of stating, “The weather is cold, because it is cold.” It explains nothing. If the appropriate organic chemicals essential for living tissues came into being, via an unexplained process, at the appropriate time to catalyze Dawkins’s mud crystals, why do we need mud crystals?
Finally, notice that professor Dawkins and his fellow evolutionists offer no proof at all for any of their speculations, for the simple reason that there is no way to prove them. One might as plausibly speculate that the sun was originally blue when the earth was formed; no one can disprove it. Because they are “scientists,” we are required to take their word for it.
In any case, there you have it: the “scientific” hypothesis that one of the world’s most prominent Darwinian evolutionists uses to counter the ignorance, stupidity, and insanity of people who don’t accept Darwinian atheism and materialism.
Because the established scientific organizations and journals control the dictionary of science, they can get away with decreeing what is science and what is not. It’s apparently scientific to construct a whole theoretical edifice on the foundation of sheer speculation, provided that the speculation affirms Darwinian evolution.
viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
Read more articles by Thomas E. Brewton
Thank God that science replaced the blind and ignorant dogmatism of the religion, eh?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 27, 2007
I'm glad to see this important topic being discussed here on IC. I went to a high school where we were allowed to study biology from a creation perspective, but it had been 25+ years since I revisited the topic. After reading Ann Coulter's book "Godless" where she devotes four out of eleven chapters to the topic of Darwinian evolution, I decided to poke around on the web and see what I could find. I came away more convinced than ever that the creationists have a much better model for explaining the physical universe and its inhabitants than do the evolutionists.
The problem boils down to this: evolutionists simply can't get past the fundamental premise made by creationists; namely, that there is an uncreated Being who designed everything. However, once you accept this premise, the evidence for a Designer rather than random mutation is really quite overwhelming. All the observable data "fits" the creationist model much better than the evolutionist model. Again, the problem is in the premise, not the data.
But, therein lies the rub. Evolutionists tell us repeatedly that it is ludicrous to believe a vastly more complex being "just existed" and created all that we see, and cite Occam's Razor as follows:
Which is more likely?
A) That an infinitely complex, uncreated being "just was" and made everything we see
B) That the universe and life evolved
Thus, their fundamental hang-up is "but who created God?" To which us creationists do not have an answer. However, I still go back to the issue of accepting the premise, as fantastic as it sounds, and moving outward from there. Assume that God is. Now, based upon that assumption (or hypothesis if you will) examine the evidence of the physical universe and life. Does it reflect intelligent design? Does the geological evidence suggest a worldwide, cataclysmic flood as conveyed in Genesis?
I have yet to find questions that creationists cannot answer (such as "if the stars are millions of light years away, how can their light reach us if the earth is not millions of years old?). In contrast, there are many questions that evolution cannot answer. Several of the most basic are:
1) Why are there no transitional species observed today or in the fossil record?
2) What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
3) How do we reconcile the mathematical probability of random mutations or life springing from inorganic chemicals with things such as the law of large numbers which suggests not just implausibility, but genuine impossibility?
4) How could the ability to reproduce evolve quickly enough to keep the first "spark of life" from being extinguished with the death of the organism?
Evolution, from my perspective, requires more faith than creation. Indeed, both require faith, but one requires more faith than the other when one confines their view solely to the scientific, observable data.
Where did the designer come from? I don't know. I merely know that the universe speaks of a Designer. I would never assume that the code for Windows XP, which surely numbers in the millions of lines, just "happened" by the proverbial million monkeys at a million typewriters. Of that my Athlon processor that runs this code just evolved by the random ordering of silicon crystals and appropriate doping impurities. How much more unlikely that something as complex as the human brain just evolved?
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 27, 2007
Two fundamental flaws with macro evolutionary theory:
1) It cannot explain how something can come from nothing, i.e., where did the stuff come from that precipitated the "Big Bang," and
2) It must rely on imputed value for the theory to work. For example, it is an imputed value to suggest that it is better to walk upright than on all fours. Evolution postulates random mutations giving rise to more advanced forms, which is an assigning of worth according to a value system. It identifies more desirable evolutionary outcomes as if logic and reason applied to random events.
But what really rubs me the wrong way is the arrogance of evolutionist. If one of them posted a reply here, you could be fairly certain that they would not address any of the points raised. They would name call, belittle, and denigrate creationists.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 27, 2007
Mountain Man -
I'd like to answer your assumed flaws with the theory of evolution.
1) The theory of evolution doesn't claim to have answers for everything. There are several hypotheses about the origins of life, but none are regarded as definitive or even more than speculative. To argue otherwise is to deny that research continues.
Also, consider the theory of gravity. No one of any substance would argue that gravity is a gravely flawed theory even though no physicist can explain just how gravity works. There are hypotheses about the specific mechanisms of gravitational attraction, but nothing definitive. Why does the one theory offend and the other does not?
2) I'm not sure where you got the idea that proponents of evolution regard any organism as superior to another in any context other than that organism's ability to survive in a given environment. To the contrary, most biologists would gladly agree that, from the point of view of ability to survive, organisms like cockroaches, rats, and even most bacteria are far superior to what you refer to as "more advanced forms".
The only way in which an evolutionary change is "more desirable" is if the change allows the species in question to survive and thrive to a greater extent. To use your example, the fact that humans walk upright is beneficial in that it allows the use of tools and gives us a better view of our surroundings. It is quite detrimental in that our spine is very poorly adpated to a bipedal lifestyle, thus the predisposition for people to suffer back pains as they grow older. A bipedal lifestyle also requires a larger motor control center in the brain to control our balance, which in turn requires a larger skull, which in turn complicates childbirth.
The difference between creationists/ID proponents and "evolutionists" is that the former seem to be satisfied that God designed a product of questionable brilliance (the human spine), where as the latter want to explore the history of how such a thing came to be and why, on balance, we ended up walking on two feet despite the obvious drawbacks. One approach is not better than the other. It is simply a matter of needing different kinds of answers in order to be satisfied with the world around us.
Finally, it really wasn't that hard to address your points without name calling. If you feel my comments are belittling or denigrating, then I apologize. I guess you must have run across some pretty ill-tempered evolutionists in your life.
Comment by retluocc | February 28, 2007
"…most biologists would gladly agree that, from the point of view of ability to survive, organisms like cockroaches, rats, and even most bacteria are far superior to what you refer to as “more advanced forms”…The only way in which an evolutionary change is “more desirable” is if the change allows the species in question to survive and thrive to a greater extent. "
And herein lies the thesis of the essay. "Evolutionary" theory is only adequate to address how single-species changes take place. It describes a mechanism by which each different life form passes on traits that will increase the likelihood of procreation. The question that it doesn't answer, or really address in any way, is how the different life forms got there in the first place. There is no explanation in evolutionary theory for the diversity or, quite ironically, origin of species. There is no explanation of why one particular life form evolved to its present state, what it evolved from, or how the process took place. At least no explanation that is observable, provable or falsifiable. And even if there were, there would also have to be an explanation for the origin of matter that formed into the universe that formed into this galaxy, that formed into this solar system, that formed into this planet, that formed into cellular life forms that formed into every species of living organism populating this planet. In that sense, it's not really accurate to use the term "evolution", and it's completely accurate to use the term "theory" in regards to it. Unfortunately, no one recognizes it as such, and Neodarwinian dogma is unbreakable in the "scientific" community. In any public school curriculum for the last 50 years, inter-species evolution and Darwinian theory of origin of life are taught as though they were proven and immutable facts. Dare to suggest that there are doubts or uncertainty about Neodarwinian orthodoxy within the "scientific" community and say goodbye to your career. Again, thank goodness science came along to save us from that awful dogma and close-mindedness of religion.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 28, 2007
retluocc,
Sorry, but evolutionists DO claim the answers for everything. You, however, appear to be quite reasonable, even admitting that macro evolution is a theory. But have you read what Dawkins and others have said about those who dare question the "fact" of evolution?
My first example is critical. Leaving aside the fact that science cannot explain everything, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Do you think that it is possible for something to come from nothing?
My second point is that evolutionists presume that nature selects based on criteria that evolutionists find logical and reasonable. This in effect "anthropomorphizes" (sorry about spelling) the evolutionary process. Even you used the phrase, "more desireable."
This demands a chain of events that is improbable at best. It takes a lot of faith to believe this, and frankly, I'm a doubter… I think with good reason.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 1, 2007
Sorry, but evolutionists DO claim the answers for everything.
Nonsense. They only claim answers for what can be proven, and the article brutally misquotes Darwin.
Read some Dawkins, he readily admits the gaps in our knowledge.
Comment by brian | March 1, 2007
quote from nevadamistermom:
The problem boils down to this: evolutionists simply can’t get past the fundamental premise made by creationists; namely, that there is an uncreated Being who designed everything. However, once you accept this premise, the evidence for a Designer rather than random mutation is really quite overwhelming. All the observable data “fits” the creationist model much better than the evolutionist model. Again, the problem is in the premise, not the data.
1. true, evolutionists (whatever that means) cannot get past the fundamental premise made by creationists. The reason is that the premise is unscientific and evolutionists are using scientific exploration to learn more about our planet and the history of species.
2. the premise cannot be accepted because it's scientifically invalid. It might sound good to those not scientifically inclined but it is not worthy of discussion in an academic sense.
3. as for the evidence for a Designer, cite the empirical research. provide links to the studies done in a laboratory or other scientific setting that support the claim of a Designer running around creating species out of thin air.
4. evolution is a theory and theories are supported by using scientific method to derive empirical data to explain or contradict them. there are such studies for evolution and they are numerous. when the creationists' claims of debunking one of those studies or the theory of evolution itself using scientific analysis and intellectually honest arguments, let us know. it hasn't happened yet.
and one other thing: focus your efforts on debating the science, not the person behind it. You sound very liberal in your intellectual ineptitude when your arguments boil down to namecalling or attempts to suppress views unlike your own. I'm not a hardcore scientist but my brain does work and I know scientific bunk when I see it. It's a shame that there are schools teaching the bunk and calling science. People can't learn critical thinking if they have nothing to think critically about.
Comment by deskbox | March 1, 2007
1) Why are there no transitional species observed today or in the fossil record?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
2) What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
3) How do we reconcile the mathematical probability of random mutations or life springing from inorganic chemicals with things such as the law of large numbers which suggests not just implausibility, but genuine impossibility?
First of all this is abiogenesis not evolution. Plus, it seems you do not understand probabilities:
Big Numbers
This is the easiest one. This consists of using our difficulty in really comprehending how huge numbers work to say that beyond a certain probability, things become impossible. You can always identify these arguments, by the phrase "the probability is effectively zero."
You typically see people claiming things like "Anything with a probability of less than 1 in 10^60 is effectively impossible". It's often conflated with some other numbers, to try to push the idea of "too improbable to ever happen". For example, they'll often throw in something like "the number of particles in the entire universe is estimated to be 3×10^78, and the probability of blah happening is 1 in 10^100, so blah can't happen".
It's easy to disprove. Take two distinguishable decks of cards. Shuffle them together. The likelihood of the resulting deck of shuffled cards having the particular ordering that you just produced is roughly 1 in 10^166. Yeah, there's more possible unique shuffles of two decks of cards than there are particles in the entire universe.
It sure as heck seems like something that unlikely isn't possible. Our intuition says that any probability with a number that big in its denominator is just impossible. Our intuition is wrong - because we're quite bad at really grasping the meanings of big numbers.
Perspective Errors
A perspective error is a relative of big numbers error. It's part of an argument to try to say that the probability of something happening is just too small to be possible. The perspective error is taking the outcome of a random process - like the shuffling of cards that I mentioned above - and looking at the outcome after the fact, and calculating the likelihood of it happening.
Random processes typically have a huge number of possible outcomes. Anytime you run a random process, you have to wind up with one of the outcomes. They're each incredibly unlikely, but you need to wind up with one of them. The probability of getting an outcome is 100%. The probability of your being able to predict which outcome is terribly small. The error here is taking the outcome of a random process which has already happened, and treating it as if you were predicting it in advance.
Bad Combinations
Combining the probabilities of events can be very tricky, and easy to mess up. It's often not what you would expect. You can make things seem a lot less likely than they really are by making an easy to miss mistakes.
The classic example of this is one that almost every first-semester probability instructor tries in their class. In a class of 20 people, what's the probability of two people having the same birthday? Most of the time, you'll have someone say that the probability of any two people having the same birthday is 1/365^2; so the probability of that happening in a group of 20 is the number of possible pairs over 365^2, or 400/365^2, or about 1/3 of 1 percent.
That's the wrong way to derive it. There's more than one error there, but I've seen three introductory probability classes where that was the first guess. The correct answer is very close to 50%.
Fake Numbers
To figure out the probability of some complex event or sequence of events, you need to know some correct numbers for the basic events that you're using as building blocks. If you get those numbers wrong, then no matter how meticulous the rest of the probability calculation is, the result is garbage. If I say that in rolling a fair die, the odds of rolling a 6 is 1/6th the odds of rolling a one, then I'm not going to get any meaningful predictions of probability. This one is incredibly common in evolution arguments: the initial probability numbers are just pulled out of thin air, with no justification.
Misshapen Search Space
When you model a random process, one way of doing it is by modeling it as a random walk over a search space. Just like the fake numbers error, if your model of the search space has a different shape than the thing you're modeling, then you're not going to get correct results. This is another astoundingly common error in anti-evolution arguments. Evolution does have a directive force shaping the search space: you don't traverse all paths in the search space: survival prunes the space in particular ways. The "search space" of evolution is something like a bumpy surface with some big dents. Roll a marble across that surface, and it's going to move in a particular way with a probability map that's totally different from the probability map of a flat surface.
False Independence
If you want to make something appear less likely than it really is, or you're just not being careful, a common statistical mistake is to treat events as independent when they're not. If two events with probability p_1 and p_2 are independent, then the probability of both p_1 and p_2 is p_1*p_2. But if they're not independent, then you're going to get the wrong answer.
For example, take all of the spades from a deck of cards. Shuffle them, and them lay them out. What are the odds that you laid them out in numeric order? It's 1/13! = 1/6,227,020,800. That's a pretty ugly number. But if you wanted to make it look even worse, you could "forget" the fact that the draws are dependent, in which case the odds would be 1/13^13 - or 1/3×10^14 - about 50,000 times worse.
- with a nod to Mark Chu-Carroll
4) How could the ability to reproduce evolve quickly enough to keep the first “spark of life” from being extinguished with the death of the organism?
Argument from Incredulity. “I can’t imagine how it happened so it must not have.” Not a sound argument.
Comment by Dunesong | March 1, 2007
Isn't it possible to be a true conservative and still not believe in gods and angels an d that miracle silliness?
Simply put: without understandig a good deal of evolutionary theory, most of the sciences would be meaningless. Relgion would have us believe some divine something way up in the cosmos, never seen, and never evidenced in any wayk, started the whole thing and either then went on sabbatical or still isactive, as in tghe tornado today that killed some 18 high school students in Arkansaw.
When I was young I believed in the tooth fairy, santa claus and god…then I grew up. Of course not all is yet known about evolution. Butg look at what science has now given us: cures, great drugs to help people,genetic codes, an understanding of geology,the cosmos etc and of course more to be learned and will be.
But if I have an infection, give me medicine compounded by science rather than a prayer any time.
Haven't got the anser s? simple: just say some deity you have nevefr seen and never will see did it all. Easy answer that is just plain ignorant because it is no better than tossing up hyour arms and sayign it is this thing we don't really know that made it all happen. Proof? Let me show you god. I will draw his picture for you.
Ah, of coufse not: he is Unkn owable…wow. talk about primitive thinking
Comment by stroker349 | March 1, 2007
"I’m not a hardcore scientist but my brain does work and I know scientific bunk when I see it. It’s a shame that there are schools teaching the bunk and calling science."
Well, thankfully evolution has sound-minded people like you working for it who are able to "focus your efforts on debating the science, not the person behind it.", instead of idiots whose brains don't work and who aren't academically and scientifically inclined /sarcasm.
For being so scientifically minded, and being the final authority on what is "bunk", you don't make much of an argument yourself. In fact, it lacks all of the components that you cited. I'll take you up on your own challenge: "cite the empirical research. provide links to the studies done in a laboratory or other scientific setting" that support the claim of spontaneous generation of cellular life from inorganic matter, and/or random mutation resulting in a new species. When cells randomly assemble themselves from inorganic matter, divide, mutate, and continue successively until they have created several generations of successively more diverse species in a scientific, laboratory environment, then you've got exactly the answers necessary to conclusively prove your argument. And that's making it easy for you, since you don't even have to explain the creation of matter and energy.
For all the empirical evidence and undeniable proof that I always hear talked about for evolution, you sure are stingy with it.
"First of all this is abiogenesis not evolution. Plus, it seems you do not understand probabilities"
Thanks for the lecture, professor, but I'm not exactly sure who you're addressing since nobody brought up any of the arguments that you're trying to refute.
This is my favorite:
"Argument from Incredulity. “I can’t imagine how it happened so it must not have.” Not a sound argument."
So what you're saying is that the the "argument" (if you can call dismissing an argument because you simply don't believe it an argument) that is consistently used by great intellectuals like deskbox to pooh pooh any insubordination of thought to neodarwinian theory is invalid to be used in relation to neodarwinian theory? Awesome! I can win a lot of arguments that way.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 1, 2007
"look at what science has now given us: cures, great drugs to help people,genetic codes, an understanding of geology,the cosmos etc"
And pray tell, what does Darwinian evolution have to do with any of it? Drugs and space travel couldn't have been accomplished without an unproven theory about the mechanism by which organisms pass on features that make them more likely to procreate? Some of the biggest breakthroughs in science, like the formulation of the theories of gravitation and thermodynamics were made in the "dark ages" before Darwin ever set sail on the HMS Beagle.
I'm still waiting on the undeniable and immutable proof of a laboratory-observed incidence of spontaneous cell generation and mutation resulting in new species generation, by the way. I know it must be out there somewhere, because that's what I keep hearing from the scientifically inclined, intelligent, inquiring minds out there who are capable of deep thought that I clearly am not. I guess you must have to join the cult, er, club.
It's hilarious, really. Charles Darwin must be laughing all the way to heaven, or Nirvana, or whatever it is you believe in. Imagine being too stupid to attend university and having to instead attend divinity school, having no formal training in science, admittedly not having a full understanding of algebraic mathematics, ripping off a theory first proposed by your grandfather, and having it adhered to with religious fervor by scientists for the next 150 years, despite limitations like a complete misunderstanding of cell structure and heredity prevalent of the day. That's quite a racket. Neither Jesus Christ nor the prophet Muhammad were able to develop a following that fanatical in such a short period of time. Must be because Darwininists are so independent minded an free thinking…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 2, 2007
Dunesong you bring up excellent points on probability. Very well illustrated. THough not as knowledgeable in statistics as you are (I often need to look up formulae) that is one of the primary points I like to use in debate.
I do not see why evolution is such a threat to the conservative philosophy. I work with many conservative scientists, that subscribe to the tested Theory of Evolution.
There is a (Forgive the cliche) plethora of transitional species found by scientists. The problem is that the creation movement does not accept the science. Unless we dug and found a rock with a fossil record of species with arrows delineating each transition, it will not be beleived. The transitional species have been evaluated as such by a scientific consensus. Unfortunately the argument is simply not accepted by those outside the profession (which is really of little consequence).
The evidence for evolution is evaluated by qualified scientists. Unfortunately the evidence is dismissed by those untrained in science, and propagated to the layman as uncertain.
Creationist try very hard to debunk evolution, but they can only ever succeed on a philosophical basis, not a scientific basis. Whether it is the ratio of helium in rocks, or trying to debunk that the earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old, (though how anyone can seriously try to debate this is beyond me) creationists always fail. They simply fail because science is naturalistic, and one does not try to prove or disprove the supernatural within science.
The main strength the creation movement has is that they are laughed out of science conventions, and use this as proof to the layman that scientists are somehow scared of an unscientific theory.
The Theory of Evolution COULD be wrong, but it will be naturalistic science, and not religion that brings its deathknell.
Comment by Mournblade | March 2, 2007
Brian,
Nice dodge in #7. Don't answer the thrust of my post, but simply deny what snotty evolutionists do. Check out #10 by stroker349 as an example.
Stroker, why not tell us how something can come from nothing, because that's what is required if there is no diety. Then when can talk again about "gods and angels and that miracle silliness."
Oh, and stroker. Try to focus. No one is talking about whether or not science has done great things. Criticizing one questionable part of science does not mean that all science is faulty or worthy of reproach.
Is it possible to be a true conservative and not believe in God? Sir, unlike liberalism, there is no litmus test to be a conservative. But I will say that it does take the ability to think, reason, and put together a series of thoughts into a logical argument.
Once you can do that, you might discover that God is logical and reasonable.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 2, 2007
Patrick,
So, since I called bs on the attacks on evolution presented by nevadamistermom, I'm now a "great intellectual" and the "final authority" on what is bunk? Now that's deep.
As I said, argue with evolution, not me. If you do ever come across a link to some scientific research done to support what you ridicule me for calling bunk, please share it. Until then, I can't dismiss an argument that wasn't made in the first place.
Also, Mountain Man: God is logical and reasonable. God isn't science though, and this debate (evolution vs. creationism) isn't about belief.
Comment by deskbox | March 2, 2007
People really should read more carefully:
———————
-From Patrick Mulligan:
“First of all this is abiogenesis not evolution. Plus, it seems you do not understand probabilities”
Thanks for the lecture, professor, but I’m not exactly sure who you’re addressing since nobody brought up any of the arguments that you’re trying to refute.
——————–
First off, while I am a Ph.D. I am not a Professor. I work in aerospace and only from home part time at that since I gave birth to my daughter. So if you want to be snarky at least get it right and call me “Doc” or some other such disparaging remark but not “professor” as that is incorrect. Secondly, to the “substance” of your “reply”, it would seem that you either do not read carefully or are not aware that the “law of large numbers” refers to probabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
I also quoted the argument I was refuting. Please see above and read carefully this time (hint: the post I was replying to was authored by nevadamistermom)
As to the part that is your favorite Patrick Mulligan:
Pointing out that someone is making an Argument from Incredulity is very much a valid observation and a very sound reason to dismiss someone’s argument. See, an "Argument from Incredulity” is what is called a Logical Fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
To quote:
“In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.”
The specific logical fallacy of "Argument from Incredulity" can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Thanks for playing, please try again.
Comment by Dunesong | March 2, 2007
For those who might actually be interested in the current state of abiogenesis research there is an excellent popular review found in Gen.e.sis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins by Robert Hazen. You could also go to PubMed.com and search for "origin of life" (600+ articles), RNA world (300+ articles), abiogenesis (13 articles), "first cell" (900+ articles), "metabolism first" (20 articles), etc. See, you have to actually go out and read books and do the research if you want to find out about things. It works much better than complaining that no one has done it for you.
For the new species complaint, once again research is your friend: Pubmed search under "mutation new species" (2000+ articles), "gene duplication new species" (200+ articles), etc. Or go to the following:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-04-03.asp
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/1994/19940000-sexual-isolation-mutation.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1112_031112_flowermutation.html
Enjoy…
-Dune
Comment by Dunesong | March 2, 2007
deskbox,
Quoting you: "God isn’t science though, and this debate (evolution vs. creationism) isn’t about belief." We are talking about two belief systems. We are talking about what you and I believe might have happened a long time ago, with evidence of same being interpreted according to our respective world views.
Unless you are willing (actually, able) to apply the Scientific Method to either or both beliefs, your position is as much a matter of faith as mine.
But no one seems to want to tell me how something can come from nothing. Before the Big Bang, before there were molecules or photons or anything, how did the the first stuff happen?
Comment by Mountain Man | March 2, 2007
"So, since I called bs on the attacks on evolution presented by nevadamistermom, I’m now a “great intellectual” and the “final authority” on what is bunk? Now that’s deep."
I believe it was you who came right out said that creationists were not "scientifically minded", and proceeded to described yourself as being "scientifically minded" and "having a brain" able to determine "what is bunk" when you see it (implying, obviously, that anyone who disagrees does not, and cannot).
"As I said, argue with evolution, not me. If you do ever come across a link to some scientific research done to support what you ridicule me for calling bunk, please share it. Until then, I can’t dismiss an argument that wasn’t made in the first place."
You ought to take yourself up on your own advice. Now, in addition to not being "scientifically minded", and not having a functioning brain or being able to detect "bunk" by implication, I am not deep (as if I were trying to make a philosophical statement in the first place). About the evidence, show me yours and I'll show you mine. The day you observe spontaneous cell generation and/or successive mutation resulting in species multiplication within a laboratory, then I'll start working on observing spontaneous species creation by God in a laboratory. One of the determining characteristics of genuine, strong-sense critical thinking is that the same standards of evidence are applied to all sides and perspectives represented in an argument. For being of such scientific mind, you seem to have varying standards of proof. Either you must prove that God exists unequivocally and capture an act of intelligent creation in progress, or Darwinian theory on the origin and evolution of life are unequivocally true. I can no more dismiss an argument that wasn't presented than you can.
"this debate (evolution vs. creationism) isn’t about belief. "
It seems to be all about belief. If you don't believe in evolutionary theory of the origins of life, you are mentally deficient. If you do believe in evolutionary theory of the origins of life, you are science-minded.
"There is a (Forgive the cliche) plethora of transitional species found by scientists. The problem is that the creation movement does not accept the science. Unless we dug and found a rock with a fossil record of species with arrows delineating each transition, it will not be beleived. The transitional species have been evaluated as such by a scientific consensus. Unfortunately the argument is simply not accepted by those outside the profession (which is really of little consequence)."
Sufficient enough to explain the diversification of species over the last 4.5 billions years? No. We should be unearthing "transitional forms" with monotonous frequency given the number of species. The "fossil record" is incomplete and inconsistent. Arrows delineating changes aren't necessary, but things like finding "newer" fossils in strata layers that are supposed to contain "older" fossils, and vice versa is worth questioning. Or like finding a handful of fossilized bones or bone fragments and constructing a theoretical "transitional species" out of them and putting it into school texts like it came down from Mt. Sinai. Of course, I'm not a "scientist", and consequently my understanding is obviously flawed and weak. Consequently, I better just take their word for it because they're so smart, and I'm so stupid. Heck, they have a unanimous consensus! I bet other fields of study wish they had the advantage that science does to dismiss dissent because of elitism. If a unanimous consensus of industrial psychologists agreed that an 80 hour work week was healthy, corporations could demand 80 hours a week of their workers and simply blow off anybody who complained because they were too uneducated and simple to understand the research. Must be nice…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 2, 2007
"First off, while I am a Ph.D. I am not a Professor. I work in aerospace and only from home part time at that since I gave birth to my daughter. So if you want to be snarky at least get it right and call me “Doc” or some other such disparaging remark but not “professor” as that is incorrect. "
I apologize, I'll choose my sarcasm more carefully next time. Very impressive credentials, by the by, doctor. Here's your cookie.
"Secondly, to the “substance” of your “reply”, it would seem that you either do not read carefully or are not aware that the “law of large numbers” refers to probabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
I also quoted the argument I was refuting. Please see above and read carefully this time (hint: the post I was replying to was authored by nevadamistermom)"
As much as I appreciate the typical condescension of an arrogant "scientist" (I hope that's not too disparaging, or that I haven't miss-labeled you in that description), you might be surprised to know that I am literate and proficient in English. They teach it to us business majors too. And although they didn't teach URL link clicking in university, I did pick it up along way. I know exactly what your arguments and the law of large numbers refer to. I did not see nevadamistermoms post you were referring to. Sometimes because of the posts being moderated and queued they get shuffled. In any case, I did not notice it and your post seemed to be a "pre-emptive" rebuttal to arguments that hadn't been proposed yet, as I said in my post. I don't recall saying anything about not understand probability and the law of large numbers, but thanks anyway for the recap. At the very least, I'm sure it made you feel good about yourself to be able to demonstrate your vast knowledge (via Wikipedia) in the area again, and I'm happy I could oblige.
"As to the part that is your favorite Patrick Mulligan:
Pointing out that someone is making an Argument from Incredulity is very much a valid observation and a very sound reason to dismiss someone’s argument. See, an “Argument from Incredulity” is what is called a Logical Fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy"
Wow. Logimacal falilacacy, you say? I no understand. What means Logimacal falilacacy??
For your information *Doctor 'Doc' Dunsong, Ph.D* (let's take a moment for ego affirmations. Done? Okay.), I have learned about logical fallacies in my time at university. They teach that to us business majors too, along with English. I don't know what gave you the impression that I don't know what a logical fallacy is. Maybe you just didn't understand what I was saying. Let me try to put into simpler words that a Ph.D graduate can understand: The logical fallacy that you cited ("a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.") is frequently used by arrogant, condescending, dismissive "scientists", not unlike yourself, to dismiss any notion of creation out of hand because creationists cannot prove the existence of God (hint: I was accusing deskbox of doing exactly this in my last post). Maybe read my three posts over a couple of times before you respond again to make sure you're understanding what I was saying. This way you can save your demeaning and arrogant comments and attitude for those times when you actually have a point to make.
"Thanks for playing, please try again. "
Yeah, you sure showed me. I haven't had intellectual stimulation like that since my satellite provider dropped the Cartoon Network. Thank you very much Doctor "Doc" "Dr." Dunesong, Ph.D (go ahead, one last pat on the back. Feel better? I hope so).
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 2, 2007
I loved the post about the shuffling of the cards. Recap: Take two decks and shuffle them, they will conform to one of the possible combinations. Yes you do get a result even if the chance of that result is small. Now lets try it in reverse. Take two decks that are mixed at random. Shuffle them. Call me when they appear as they did when they came out of the package, in suite and in sequence. I'm waiting.
When going from ordered to random the chances are very good to get a random result. When going from random to ordered the chances are that you will get another random result.
So we are to believe that out of nothing the universe exploded. To add to this we are to believe that out of randomness order exploded. At least science is consistant.
It comes down to do you believe in man or do you believe in God?
I place my belief in God.
Comment by fbaginski | March 2, 2007
Mountain Man:
Evolution is not a belief system. Arguing as you do under the assumption that it is may be your problem here. One can apply the Scientific Method to evolution theory and it happens all the time (read about the next fossil find, for example, and see how the scoentific method is used and how the theory of evolution for that species is/are discussed). One cannot apply a scientific method to creationism. My position is not a matter of faith. Now, if you perceive my views on evolution and science as being my faith in it, that's your opinion. Frankly, I easily see how you only have something to say about it if you take that perception. Even you can take a scientific theory (ex. law of gravity) and validate it with an experiment (ex. drop something, measure its mass, gravity, etc). If you call that faith, then fine. That's not faith to me though. Likewise, you cannot apply the scientific method to creationism. You can only have faith in it because you cannot prove it or test it (or disprove it) via experimentation. See the difference?
As for your second point, maybe nobody wants to tell you how something can come from nothing because something cannot come from nothing and people think that's too obvious to say. That's basic chemistry if I recall. I'm sorry but I don't understand your point here.
Patrick,
Yes, I did say creationists were not scientifically-minded (or words to that effect). I see that as a simple observation based on the arguments I've read from you and others in this and other forums on this topic. Those arguments simply aren't made in scientific terms, and they all are rooted in a belief in creationism. See my comments above on faith vs. science. I don't see that as a personal attack on those people's or you I don't mean it as one. You might be a great guy, I don't know, but your arguments here fall apart because you're not arguing science with science. That doesn't mean your brain isn't functioning either.
You can read my evidence anywhere you care to look for news on related topics ex. fossil discoveries. You probably need to read something more rigorous than the mainstream news but it sounds like the effort would be worthwhile for you, if you accept the notion that there isn't a deistic influence behind that event in the news. Don't feel pressured to wait for me to do research before starting yours. As I said, you'd be starting from zero and I wouldn't. As for spontaneous cell generation, it sounds like you're making the same mistake of attacking science with nonscience again. Critical thinking is tough, I know, but maybe you can pretend for a moment and just ask what else might have happened if God didn't do it. You wouldn't be the first.
Again, the only one throwing around character attacks here ("mentally deficient") is you. Evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not. Arguing for creationism as though it's a scientific is what fails you. That's all I'm saying.
Comment by deskbox | March 2, 2007
The article claims that Darwin believed that the existence of God was a "damnable doctrine." This is a falsehood. That quote comes from a Darwin's autobiography and is what he says about the Christian idea of hell for unbelievers. Darwin was not an atheist and stated many times, including in the biography this quote was mined from and misrepresented, that he felt that there had to be a Prime Mover.
The article claims that "evolutionists" do not believe in or cannot conceive of God. This is also a falsehood. The majority of people who acknowledge evolution as good science are believers. In fact, the largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, officially considers evolutionary science as compatible with their religion. Countless prominent evolutionary biologists are Christians. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and independently convergent: it has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God, the _scientific_ evidence speaks to the same thing either way.
Instead of actually trying to argue with that, however, the article asserts that "Darwinists" somehow need to fully explain the origin of the entire universe. This is nonsense. Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution has a specifically limited scope. It does not purport to explain either the origin of life, or the origin of the universe: these are separate and independent questions studied by different disciplines. If you wish to believe that God created the universe and sparked life, more power to you: no one knows how the universe ultimately began (or even if it did), and while there are a number of rudimentary ideas about how life could have begun, we don't know enough yet to be able to pick amongst them. You can always assert that God was the cause of this or that, but if we all sat around in our armchairs assuming that God just did everything, we'd never learn anything.
The author of the article has furthermore simply misrepresented the activities of scientists approaching the latter subject (the field of abiogenesis). This field is indeed still speculative, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is not based on evidence or that no answer can ever be found: a good answer strongly supported by the evidence is precisely what this field is working for. In fact, the plausible explanations are all built from and constantly compared against all the evidence we can gather. Frankly, the author doesn't even seem to understand the particulars of what he's criticizing regardless.
________________________________
Patrick Mulligan: yes your understanding of the fossil record, and how it relates to common descent and the transitions of species does in fact seem to be quite confused. You most certainly do not have to take anyone's word for it, but the question is whether you are actually interested in learning about what the evidence is and why its important in the first place. As far as I can tell, you are not only not interested, but in fact resent the very idea that you might have to learn about something before being able to debate it. Given that, it's hard to understand why you would be so sarcastic about people criticizing you for not understanding what you are talking about, since you don't seem to care whether or not you do, and already have all the answers.
"So we are to believe that out of nothing the universe exploded."
In science, no one asks you to "believe" anything in the sense of a faith belief. We instead care about what the evidence supports. In the case of the universe, all we really can say for sure is that the Big Bang happened, and generally what sorts of events and forces shaped the universe from that point to what we see today. We don't really know anything about "before" the Big Bang or even if that concept makes any sense. So do you have any actual critiques against the evidence for the Big Bang or basic astrophysics and so forth?
Comment by Deane Emmeret | March 3, 2007
deskbox,
Macro evolution has been tested using the Scientific Method? Really? The Scientific Method is "the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
What part of macro evolution has been observed? What part has been repeated in laboratory experiments? All we have are a bunch of bones and layers of sediment. That is the evidence (which science interprets) not the process. Therefore, macro evolution is not even properly a sciencific discipline, it belongs more in the realm of history.
So, something cannot come from nothing you say, but yet you do not understand my point. I quote myself for your benefit: "Before the Big Bang, before there were molecules or photons or anything, how did the the first stuff happen?"
While acknowledging that this is not properly a discipline of macro evolutionary theory, I am simply extending the premise of evolutionists. If life can come from non life, then explain to me how something can come from nothing. How did the first stuff come about?
Until you can explain first things first, there is no real point in addressing the rest of evolutionary theory.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 3, 2007
MountainMan, you are confused as to how science works in general and what the nature of the evidence for common descent is in specific.
Science tests things against evidence. "Observation" in the scientific method is how we identify things that we then try to explain, not what is literally required via eyeballs in order to conclude anything (you'll note that this is actually what your own quote says, unlike your own subsequent summary of it), and certainly not of a historical nature.
All sorts of elements of evolutionary theory have, in fact, been tested in laboratories, as well as in the field: read a biology journal: you think these things are just blank pages? In the case off a historical/forensic claim like common descent itself, repeatability applies to the _evidence_ demonstrating a particular explanation, not to the events being explained. Claims about the past based on evidence very much are scientific: and history as a discipline, in fact, applies science all the time. Science is about testing claims against the evidence.
"All we have are a bunch of bones and layers of sediment."
Well no, not really. What we have is a convergence of every single piece of evidence yet looked at in the natural world on not just "things are old" or "things evolved" but in fact a very detailed pattern and picture of exactly what happened when. The idea that fossil evidence is the only evidence relevant to common descent is a common misconception. Fossil evidence doesn't even scratch the surface. I suggest you read that citation of the 29+ evidences for macroevolution at talk-origins. It really is a pretty good start. Once you can actually explain away all that evidence directly, you're welcome to try, but mis-characterizing what it is or how science works isn't going to get you anywhere.
"So, something cannot come from nothing you say,"
Actually, no, we don't know whether this is true or not. As far as we can tell, many quantum events happen without cause, for instance, including the appearance and vanishing of particles out of nowhere (all cleverly without violating the conservation of matter/energy too!).
" but yet you do not understand my point. I quote myself for your benefit: “Before the Big Bang, before there were molecules or photons or anything, how did the the first stuff happen?”"
The only honest answer is that we don't know (though we know a bit prior to molecules and photons). So what? Do you know? This is a fascinating area of research, but we may never know. Such is life.
"While acknowledging that this is not properly a discipline of macro evolutionary theory, I am simply extending the premise of evolutionists."
No you aren't, your "extension" makes little sense.
"If life can come from non life, then explain to me how something can come from nothing."
These aren't even remotely the same topics: there's no reason to assume that the answers have anything in common or to do with each other. Besides, living things are a subset of non-living things: they are the same atoms and molecules just in a particular arrangement, not some radical new magic trick.
"How did the first stuff come about?"
We don't even know whether or not it did "come about." Again, read astrophysics sometime. This is a really interesting question, hotly debated, and quite exciting. It's a pity that you think you already have the answer (even if your answer doesn't actually explain anything).
Comment by Deane Emmeret | March 3, 2007
"I did say creationists were not scientifically-minded (or words to that effect). I see that as a simple observation based on the arguments I’ve read from you and others in this and other forums on this topic. Those arguments simply aren’t made in scientific terms, and they all are rooted in a belief in creationism. See my comments above on faith vs. science."
I understand very well the difference between belief and science. The hilarious thing is that all of the things you point out that differentiate belief from science apply equally with Darwinian evolution as they to do creationism. For all intents and purposes, both creation and evolution believe basically the same thing about the creation of the universe, this planet, and the subsequent creation of life. The Big Bang can no more be replicated or scientifically observed and proven than creation by a higher being. Neither can the spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic matter (the principle starting point of all evolutionary thought). They both rely on the same thing: the spontaneous creation of something from nothing. That cannot be observed, and it therefore cannot be falsified. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria of scientific method. I've done plenty of reading and evaluation of evolutionary theory, and taken enough secular science classes to know what it entails and what methods of science are applied to it. The burden of proof is on you. I freely admit that I cannot prove the existence of God or spontaneous creation of life scientifically. You insist evolutionary theorists can, and have. I'm still waiting on the conclusive research. And fossil digs haven't exactly given it to me. Maybe instead of talking in circles, you could explain to me the how and why.
"You can read my evidence anywhere you care to look for news on related topics ex. fossil discoveries. You probably need to read something more rigorous than the mainstream news but it sounds like the effort would be worthwhile for you, if you accept the notion that there isn’t a deistic influence behind that event in the news. Don’t feel pressured to wait for me to do research before starting yours. As I said, you’d be starting from zero and I wouldn’t."
Read my comments above. That's precisely the problem. You refuse to start at zero, and that's where a problem to be addressed begins. I'm still waiting on an explanation of the creation of matter, energy, the universe, the planet, cellular life and macroevolution of cellular life into modern forms. You're satisfied with skipping all that and discussing the method by which evolution takes place. In the sense of adaptation, I'm willing to accept that "evolution" takes place in subsequent generations of species. So forget about that. The secular/evolutionary theory of what precludes it is what I don't buy. Because it hasn't been proven and can't be. If I cannot prove that God created cellular life, and you cannot show that cellular life can be generated from inorganic matter, we're both in the same boat my friend.
"As for spontaneous cell generation, it sounds like you’re making the same mistake of attacking science with nonscience again. Critical thinking is tough, I know, but maybe you can pretend for a moment and just ask what else might have happened if God didn’t do it. You wouldn’t be the first."
Really? How? I'm supposed to provide you with unequivocal proof that God created life or else my "belief", "theory", whatever you want to call it, is invalid, but I cannot ask the same evidence in return? I'm afraid it is you that needs a brush up on critical thinking my friend. You do not apply the same standards of evidence to each side of the argument. You demand evidence from me, but tell me I'm not acting scientifically if I ask you to provide evidence of the same standard. I've actually got some leftover textbooks that I just finished with on the subject for college, and I've just finished a lengthy paper on the subject (critical thinking, that is). I think I'll consult those on the subject before you, if it's all the same.
"Again, the only one throwing around character attacks here (”mentally deficient”) is you. Evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not."
I never attacked you personally. And I also never accused you of using the term you quoted directly. It's easily inferred by implication. Come on, I may be stupid and non-scientific, but I can pick up condescension, arrogance and backhanded comments when I read them.
"Patrick Mulligan: yes your understanding of the fossil record, and how it relates to common descent and the transitions of species does in fact seem to be quite confused."
Really? Because I didn't make any comments regarding how the fossil record relates to transitions of species. I'm glad you could make that assessment though. I'll have to tell my college biology teacher. Oh, darn, I can't. I passed "evolution 101" already.
"it’s hard to understand why you would be so sarcastic about people criticizing you for not understanding what you are talking about, since you don’t seem to care whether or not you do, and already have all the answers."
No one has thus far criticized me for not knowing what I was talking about in regards to the fossil record (which I never made an argument about), nor any of the questions or points that I actually did make. I was criticized for not understanding what a logical fallacy is and had my ability to think and reason called into question. And as I pointed out to your fellow donkey-hole in arms, I've got a darn fine grasp on the subject, thank you. I didn't claim to have ANY answers. I simply asked for some. And I still haven't gotten them. Thank you for illustrating this point as only an arrogant, condescending, pseudo-intellectual windbag who has stuck his foot directly into his mouth can.
"In science, no one asks you to “believe” anything in the sense of a faith belief. We instead care about what the evidence supports. In the case of the universe, all we really can say for sure is that the Big Bang happened, and generally what sorts of events and forces shaped the universe from that point to what we see today. We don’t really know anything about “before” the Big Bang or even if that concept makes any sense. So do you have any actual critiques against the evidence for the Big Bang or basic astrophysics and so forth? "
The statement you quoted that produced this response wasn't written but me, but it was in the heading of your post addressed to me, so I'm not sure what you want me to answer here. But basically, what you have said above about the nature of the universe is exactly the argument that was made. It wasn't observed, it can't be observed, and it isn't scientific. That WAS the critique being made.
This is the last I will post or check up on these comments. Obviously my questions will not be answered (not surprisingly, since they don't actually have an answer), and you all can continue to denigrate and name-call and massage your egos and pretend like you've proven something by it. These responses have only gone to illustrate my original point.
Until next time…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 4, 2007
Deane,
You say, "MountainMan, you are confused as to how science works in general and what the nature of the evidence for common descent is in specific."
Don't patronize me. I am not some school child with you as the indulgent teacher. I know precisely how science works, and macro evolution is not science. It is one interpretation of data, and a deficient one at that.
"Observation" is not a complicated word. "Phenomena" is the word I paired with it, defined as "any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning." I look at a fossil to see how it relates to others in the same strata and other strata. THEN I apply reasoning and intution and interpretation ACCORDING TO MY MODEL in order to make suppositions, develop theories, and make predictions.
It is your model I am questioning. So tell me, isn't that good science, to question our suppositions and premises and theories without being belittled? Or is science so fragile that it must put down all opposition and silence any detractors?
I said, “If life can come from non life, then explain to me how something can come from nothing,” and your reply was, "These aren’t even remotely the same topics." Duh. I believe I said that in my post.
Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure that the beginning of things is an exciting topic in astro physics circles. You are no doubt absolutely correct that there are some interesting ideas being circulated. But exactly how does that answer my question? Artful dodging is not an answer, Deane.
"We don’t even know whether or not it did 'come about.'” Oh, really? Science does know exactly what happened 4 billion years ago when the first creature crawled out of the primordial ooze and began experimenting with opposable thumbs, but it doesn't know if matter and space and energy had a beginning?
Now you're entering dangerous territory. If you are willing to believe the possibility that matter is eternal, then you have forfeited every objection you could level at deists. The eternality of matter is indistinguishable from an eternal diety for all practical purposes, differing only in conscious purpose. Again, this is not science.
Now, would you do me the courtesy of responding to my points rather than evading them?
Comment by Mountain Man | March 4, 2007
Biological evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." Abiogenesis is not the premise of biological evolution. Evolution by natural selection is concerned with the origin of species, and is relevant whether life originated as a product of abiogenesis, panspermia, or one of an infinite creator-god possibilities.
So it is absurd to claim that there is no real point in addressing the rest of evolutionary theory, until it is decided exactly how life originated. It is worthwhile to note that evolution by natural selection was first brought to the academic world in 1859, and to expect scientists to speak in terms that express certainty, when there is no certainty, is to expect scientists to lie. Professor Dawkins does not know how life originated on earth. He apparently thinks abiogenesis is the likely answer, but he is not a biochemist, and even if he were, no biochemist is certain.
This is actually a very interesting idea right now, because we have the Cassini-Huygens probe at Titan, which as I understand it, many scientists believe Titan's geology and chemical make-up might be representative of earth's early make-up.
Uncertainty and doubt is not the devil in science. It is what makes science what it is. It is what drives research, and allows the body of scientific knowledge to flesh out those things which are incorrect.
——
As to the idea that God is logical and reasonable… I find this very lacking. What is the good reasoning that has led you to believe in a god(s)? And depending on whether or not some of you believe in a specific deity… by what authority does any person claim to know the attributes and personality of an immaterial being? But again, sticking with the premise, what good reasoning is there to believe in such a thing? Because you can't make sense of evolutionary theory? Because you think the world looks designed? Because you can't figure out where our morals would have come from?
—-
I really do suggest that you read a good book on biological evolution. Try Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. From some of the comments made here, it sounds like many have not read much in the way of evolutionary theory. I can tell you from what I have read on Creationism, or Intelligent Design, it does not make sense. It hinges almost entirely on "things look too complex…" and this idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old (something like 2,000 years after the Sumerians created glue, lol) is not only ludicrous it is to be completely ignorant of how we derive the age of the earth. Perhaps god is just deceptive and created all things with their half-lives set from the start so that it would seem they were old, but rather, only a few thousand years old.
Evolution by Natural Selection is just about the most brilliant idea to have ever come from a man's mouth. It makes sense of just about everything living, from why chloroplasts and mitochondrion exist within eukaryotic cells (endosymbiotic theory) to why we find homo erectus in proximity (both temporally and spatially) to sapiens. If you are honestly seeking truth, rather than validation, and are interested in the topic, read as much as you can from either side of the aisle, and I am convinced you will see what I mean about it being brilliant.
Comment by diquea | March 4, 2007
Excellent article, particularly the last three paragraphs. Technically, abiogenesis, the development of organic life from inorganic matter, isn’t explained by evolution; evolution picks up after abiogenesis leaves off. However, the author skillfully points out the hypocrisy of scientists that allows unsupported speculation to be incorporated under the scientific method, so long as it’s scientists doing the speculating.
My personal favorite is the spores from space theory proposed by Francis Crick. This Nobel Prize recipient speculated that spores traveling through space sent by an alien race seeded the earth and started the long journey up the evolutionary ladder. Interestingly, there is not a shred of proof that extraterrestrial aliens exist outside of Hollywood California, and despite years of SETI’s government funded research. How spores could travel through space undamaged is glossed over as well as exactly where in space the spores originated. When it comes to making a few bucks by trading on your scientific reputation, the integrity of scientists and the intellectual purity of the scientific method are vastly overrated.
Relative to evolution, has anyone noticed the silence in the scientific community regarding present day human evolution?
Neo-darwinism postulates randomly occurring genetic mutations as the building blocks that natural selection acts upon. So, what genetic changes are currently present that will affect future human morphology?
Consider that Thomas Morgan, a geneticist at Columbia, calculated that genetic mutations occur within 10 individuals out of every 1 million based on experiments with drosophila (fruit flies). Using the scientific method, this would indicate there are more than 60,000 living humans with genetic mutations creating a potential basis for evolution. Further, employing the fact based speculation so favored by the scientific community, assume that 75% of these mutations are adverse or effectively neutral relative to natural selection. That leaves 15,000 living mutants pointing the way toward the future of human evolution.
There is no more closely monitored species on this planet than human beings, yet none of these evolutionary mutants has been reported. Wouldn’t a human being representing the next evolutionary step be headline news around the world, be featured on the cover of Rolling Stone or doing guest interviews with Larry King? And, shouldn’t governments be more inclined toward funding research into the future of human evolution rather than the latest missing link between ape and man? Yet, where are these heavily funded and highly publicized research programs? Where are the grant proposals within the National Institutes of Health database? Shouldn’t we be hearing news of a Human Evolution Project on the same order of magnitude as the Human Genome Project, accompanied by the same presidential and congressional encouragement?
Is the reason because a Human Evolution Project would attract intense media interest and create tremendous excitement within the general population? With over 6 billion species members and present day medical technology, is it possible scientists want no part in actually putting evolution theory to the test? Is it preferable to root around in the past courtesy of taxpayer funding, rather than investigate the present?
Would the magnificent fraud that is neo-darwinism be exposed or would scientists fall back upon the standard speculation that humans are currently (and conveniently) in a period of “evolutionary stasis”?
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 4, 2007
Excellent article, particularly the last three paragraphs. Technically, abiogenesis, the development of organic life from inorganic matter, isn’t explained by evolution; evolution picks up after abiogenesis leaves off. However, the author skillfully points out the hypocrisy of scientists that allows unsupported speculation to be incorporated under the scientific method, so long as it’s scientists doing the speculating.
My personal favorite is the spores from space theory proposed by Francis Crick. This Nobel Prize recipient speculated that spores traveling through space sent by an alien race seeded the earth and started the long journey up the evolutionary ladder. Interestingly, there is not a shred of proof that extraterrestrial aliens exist outside of Hollywood California, and despite years of SETI’s government funded research. How spores could travel through space undamaged is glossed over as well as exactly where in space the spores originated. When it comes to making a few bucks by trading on your scientific reputation, the integrity of scientists and the intellectual purity of the scientific method are vastly overrated.
Relative to evolution, has anyone noticed the silence in the scientific community regarding present day human evolution?
Neo-darwinism postulates randomly occurring genetic mutations as the building blocks that natural selection acts upon. So, what genetic changes are currently present that will affect future human morphology?
Consider that Thomas Morgan, a geneticist at Columbia, calculated that genetic mutations occur within 10 individuals out of every 1 million based on experiments with drosophila (fruit flies). Using the scientific method, this would indicate there are more than 60,000 living humans with genetic mutations creating a potential basis for evolution. Further, employing the fact based speculation so favored by the scientific community, assume that 75% of these mutations are adverse or effectively neutral relative to natural selection. That leaves 15,000 living mutants pointing the way toward the future of human evolution.
There is no more closely monitored species on this planet than human beings, yet none of these evolutionary mutants has been reported. Wouldn’t a human being representing the next evolutionary step be headline news around the world, be featured on the cover of Rolling Stone or doing guest interviews with Larry King? And, shouldn’t governments be more inclined toward funding research into the future of human evolution rather than the latest missing link between ape and man? Yet, where are these heavily funded and highly publicized research programs? Where are the grant proposals within the National Institutes of Health database? Shouldn’t we be hearing news of a Human Evolution Project on the same order of magnitude as the Human Genome Project, accompanied by the same presidential and congressional encouragement?
Is the reason because a Human Evolution Project would attract intense media interest and create tremendous excitement within the general population? With over 6 billion species members and present day medical technology, is it possible scientists want no part in actually putting evolution theory to the test? Is it preferable to root around in the past courtesy of taxpayer funding, rather than investigate the present?
Would the magnificent fraud that is neo-darwinism be exposed or would scientists fall back upon the standard speculation that humans are currently (and conveniently) in a period of “evolutionary stasis”?
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 4, 2007
"Don’t patronize me. I am not some school child with you as the indulgent teacher."
If you don't want to be patronized, then get it right. If no one is allowed to point out error or misunderstandings in the arguments of others because doing so would be "patronizing" then what you are advocating is a debate premised on falsehoods and nonsense.
"I know precisely how science works, and macro evolution is not science."
Then you don't know how it works, it's that simple. Biologists seems to think it's science, experts in the history and theory of science seem to think it is science, and it fits the scientific method: even as described by you!
"It is one interpretation of data, and a deficient one at that."
No, it is the only workable interpretation of all the data. Creationists often claim this: that they are just looking at the data _differently_, but what they really mean is that they aren't looking at it _empirically_, and most of the time they have to completely ignore most of the evidence anyway. Half the time they employ concepts like "information" or "entropy" in ways that make it obvious that they don't even understand what these concepts are. How are we supposed to deal with this, other than pointing out their misrepresentations?
"“Observation” is not a complicated word."
Then why did you act as if we needed to observe events in the past in order to apply science to working out what happened? That's not how science works.
"It is your model I am questioning. So tell me, isn’t that good science, to question our suppositions and premises and theories without being belittled? Or is science so fragile that it must put down all opposition and silence any detractors?"
The problem is, your criticisms bely a basic lack of understanding of what is even being said. You can question away all you want, but when you badly misstate things to begin with, those aren't honest questions. And since I apparently am not allowed to correct you without being "patronizing" we are at a standstill. You want to spout nonsense without correction. Where do we go from there exactly?
"I said, “If life can come from non life, then explain to me how something can come from nothing,” and your reply was, “These aren’t even remotely the same topics.” Duh. I believe I said that in my post."
And yet the whole thrust of your argument has been the opposite of what you now claim to have said. So which is it? Why can't we figure out that species arose from a common origin on this planet without having to be able to explain why matter exists? We already KNOW that matter exists: that's all that evolution requires of physics, so why demand that one field is fruitless unless it can explain everything all at once?
I think the basic problem is that creationists often try to see everything else through their own worldview, which is all-encompassing and absolute. They try to see evolution as somehow being a grand religion that purports to explain everything. Nope: it's a scientific theory that explains one particular mystery: the diversity of life on the planet, where it came from, and why it shows a very peculiar pattern of relation. It doesn't explain how galaxies form, and doesn't need to.
"Yes, yes, yes, I’m sure that the beginning of things is an exciting topic in astro physics circles. You are no doubt absolutely correct that there are some interesting ideas being circulated. But exactly how does that answer my question? Artful dodging is not an answer, Deane."
No, that's the honest answer to the question. We don't know how the universe began (in the sense of how anything came into being or even IF it came in being at all). But I don't know of any other way to ever find out other than going out and studying it using science. Sitting in ones armchair and wishing that one knew the answer isn't going to accomplish anything, nor is claiming to "know" that God created it.
"“We don’t even know whether or not it did ‘come about.’” Oh, really? Science does know exactly what happened 4 billion years ago when the first creature crawled out of the primordial ooze and began experimenting with opposable thumbs, but it doesn’t know if matter and space and energy had a beginning?"
Pretty much yes: just like we know how atol reefs are formed, but we don't know how to harness fusion for energy generation. Or that we know dark matter exists, but we don't know what it is. Some things we've figured out, some we haven't, some things we have sufficient evidence on, some things we don't. Why is that so odd?
Though, of course, nothing "crawled" out of "ooze" and experimented with "thumbs."
"Now you’re entering dangerous territory. If you are willing to believe the possibility that matter is eternal, then you have forfeited every objection you could level at deists. The eternality of matter is indistinguishable from an eternal diety for all practical purposes, differing only in conscious purpose. Again, this is not science."
I don't know what you are talking about. It may well not be science in the sense that we may never be able to test whether one or the other is true. The major problem is that past a certain point in the history of the universe, there is no more evidence to be had. Science may well have to stop there and just shrug. We may never know. That's what being humble about the extent of our knowledge is all about.
And why would I want to level objections against diests anyway? Hunh? Are you still laboring under the misunderstanding that the point of science in general and evolution in specific is to undermine the idea of a creator god?
"Now, would you do me the courtesy of responding to my points rather than evading them? "
I haven't evaded your points: I've pointed out where your very questions and flawed and demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Demanding to know when I stopped beating my wife is not a "point" I respond to: I point out that the assumption of your question is a lie.
Comment by Deane Emmeret | March 4, 2007
Deane,
Once again you have failed to answer even a basic point. The fact that things exist is not prima facia evidence of evolution.
Let's be clear. You will note that nowhere in these posts have I asserted a belief in God or Intelligent Design. I did not claim that the origin of life had to be settled in order to discuss macro evolution. I did not say that evolution had to be observed in the past. I have not equated abiogenesis with evolution. I have not posited Argument from Incredulity.
I have asked for proof from evolutionists, and I have asked for a discussion of how something can come from nothing. No one seems willing to step up to the plate and tell me how the great god named science will answer. And then I am criticized for not bowing down to your god. I am ridiculed for not accepting your flawed model, your interpretation of data.
There is not a single shred of evidence that macro evolution has happened or is happening. There is no possible way to perform and experiment that will confirm of deny it.
"Are you still laboring under the misunderstanding that the point of science in general and evolution specifically is to undermine the idea of a creator god?" Excuse me, your clever rephrase is a misdirection. I never said that this was the point of evolution.
You debate like a leftist. Evade, sidestep, misdirect, inpugn, condescend. It would figure, I guess, since most leftists are evolutionists.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 5, 2007
Mountain Man,
Evolution is one topic on which leftists are usually correct. Nobody's evading or misdirecting anybody here and you earn the condescension well.
Your questions have been answered but you don't accept the answers. Perhaps, if you give us an example of what you're asking, i.e. a link to something specific that you don't understand, then maye we can elucidate it for you.
Comment by deskbox | March 5, 2007
Smug and pompous. Yup, that is what answering questions is all about.
Also, the fact that you all are astonished that anyone would have the temerity to ask questions that challenge the dogma regarding evolution does not build your case in the least. I used to think that evolutionists behaved like religionists, but I was wrong; they behave like cultists, and they mix it with leftist arrogance to boot. Truly an unpleasant combination.
What an odd way to attempt to pursuade.
By the way, quasi-intellectual leftists have rarely been correct about anything, why should the topic of evolution be any different?
Comment by Mountain Man | March 5, 2007
Why don't you go read the chapter (if not the book) by Prof. Dawkins that the author of this article quotes from? It's right here:
http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf
Althought the author claims Dawkins "prefers" this idea for the orgins of organic RNA replication, you will see if you read the chapter that he does not necessarilly. He says merly that he had treated the 'primeval-soup' theory in one of his earlier books, and so he explores this alternate explanation put forth by Graham Cairns-Smith in very general terms.
I would also point out a falicy that Mr. Brewton makes. He states:
"Again, in the quotations above he casually assumes that, after clay crystals ‘evolve,’ organic chemicals (the building blocks of living tissue, which evolutionists acknowledge did not exist when earth was formed) are handily, by chance, available to be catalyzed by his ‘evolved’ crystals. This is circular reasoning on the order of stating, “The weather is cold, because it is cold.” It explains nothing. If the appropriate organic chemicals essential for living tissues came into being, via an unexplained process, at the appropriate time to catalyze Dawkins’s mud crystals, why do we need mud crystals?"
He clearly totally misunderstood the whole point of the chapter! While organic chemicals did not exist "when the earth was formed," they certainly did when life formed 3.5 billion years later. The chapter (and Cairns-Smith's idea) is not about forming organic chemicals - those chemicals such amino acids and protiens have already been formed by the time this "mud-crystal evolution" occurs. The point of the chapter is that it possible that inorganic matierials could have 'used' (catalized) some of the organic molecules to 'better replicate,' and that, eventually, the organic matierial might have organized in such a way (primitive RNA) that it no longer needs the inorganic material to form.
Is any of this probable? Read the chapter - it's certainly within the range of possable. Sure, it's a guess, and Dawkins says so, but it's a hellava lot closer a guess than "God did it," which isn't so much even a guess as means to shut down inquiry.
"ID" theory, or to be less charitable, Creation Theory, is not science. You guys can't even all get your story straight, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? Some of you say the earth is 6000 years old, others say 10K. Others admit it could be really really old, but that man was still created at the same time as all other creatures. I notice "Mountain Man' answerd a challange to provide any eveidence to support the idea of Intellegant Design, not with actual evidence, but with a demand to see 'evidence that something can come from nothing,' thereby taking the discussion way into the outer relms of cosmology without even answering the question put to him.
Here's the thing: science is about finding out how things got to be the way they are. Scientists work very hard to weed out the bad ideas from the good, but they constantly look for new explanations, and new mysteries. You guys clearly have no interest in really finding out what science is about, all you care about is de-bunking Darwin because you think it invalidates your morality. Here's a tip: get out of the way and let the real scientists do what they do best. Or to put it in bumper sticker form: Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
Comment by Chasm | March 5, 2007
"Once again you have failed to answer even a basic point. The fact that things exist is not prima facia evidence of evolution."
I never said it was. I said that, given that things exist, evolution has no more particular need to explain how they came to exist than do theories of gravity, economics, or dental work.
"I have asked for proof from evolutionists, and I have asked for a discussion of how something can come from nothing."
The problem is: no one asserted that it has. The question is irrelevant to evolution. Now I suppose your next post you'll claim that you never demanded to know how something came from nothing, but there's your answer, such as it is.
"No one seems willing to step up to the plate and tell me how the great god named science will answer."
No one has painted science as a god. For the vast majority of scientists in the Western World, their God is Yaweh, not science. Science is a methodology for figuring things out. It has limitations and a scope.
And I've ALREADY told you how science would answer: it would present some of the interesting evidence we have in regards to the early universe and the nature of physics, but by and large, we dont know the answer. That's the answer of science.
"There is not a single shred of evidence that macro evolution has happened or is happening."
You've already been pointed at plenty. You can run around claiming anything you want, but if you want anyone to take you claims seriously, then you are going to have to explain things like the twin-nested heirarchy, conditional ancestral atavisms, the particular patterns of geographical distributions of life on earth, and all the rest, not just wave you hands around and stick your fingers in your ears. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care what the evidence is or what the science says. It's one or the other.
"There is no possible way to perform and experiment that will confirm of deny it."
When things happen in this universe, they have consequences: observable, testible effects that leave specific and discoverable results. Experiments confirm what has happened in this way: evidence disconfirms hypotheses about what happened in the past just as they do to things in the present. If you deny this, then I hope to see you protesting outside of courtrooms that use, for instance, forensic science, which works in exactly the same way along the exact same principle (nailing down past events by looking at the evidence they leave behind). The reality is that your understanding of what science is and does is demonstrably wrong. You're free to make up your own understanding of what science is so you can pretend evolution isn't a fact of life on our planet, if you find that comforting. But it isn't going to convince anyone.
Comment by Deane Emmeret | March 5, 2007
Mountain Man not one of the posters you are debating has dodged anything. It appears you are refusing to listen.
A pet peeve of mine is when someone accuses another of arguing as a leftist, because they don't agree.
Clearly those you are debating are not dodging. They are answering quite well, and it is to you that the empty comment of arguing like a leftist clearly applies.
Don't agree that is fine, but because you are wrong do not accuse everyone with an opposing view of being a leftist.
Comment by Mournblade | March 6, 2007
Well, it's easy enough to say you aren't dodging the points I raise, but that doesn't change the facts. "Given things exist, evolution has no more particular need to explain how they came to exist than do theories of gravity." This is a dodge, with a little misdirection thrown in for good measure.
I did not ask evolution to explain how things came to exist, I asked anyone to explain this, by whatever means. The phrase, "given things exist…" is utter nonsense. Because things exist, they don't have to be explained? I can now see know the inner workings of the "scientific" mind.
"Some of you say the earth is 6000 years old, others say 10K. Others admit it could be really really old, but that man was still created at the same time as all other creatures…" An empty rebuttal. No one here has asserted the age of the earth. And besides, since when has a diversity of opinion, no matter how far fetched, been a disqualifier?
You go on to contradict yourself. "Scientists work very hard to weed out the bad ideas from the good, but they constantly look for new explanations, and new mysteries." Well, if science has diversity of thought and a variety of ideas, is science therefore equally invalidated?
And besides, who believes the world is 6000 years old? Cite one prominent scientist who advocates intelligent design who believes this.
"…do not accuse everyone with an opposing view of being a leftist." I did no such thing. I said you debate like a leftist. My point is proved by what I've raised in this post. You have constantly misrepresented me, you have misquoted me, you have put words in my mouth, you have never actually answered anything (oh, except for my main question which is that you don't know. Well done.), and you have belittled.
"Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church." How clever! Kudos to you for elegantly discussing the issues at hand and offering up this coup de grace. You must be very proud.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 6, 2007
What if we examined evolution strictly as a scientific theory and took theology out of the picture? The God vs. Darwin debate forces everyone to take their emotions out for a street brawl; it’s always Big Time Wrestling at the Emotion Arena. But, is evolution a soundly constructed scientific theory like a sleek, new Mercedes two-seater or is evolution a poorly constructed theory like a rusty, old Chevy Vega? What if we looked at the theory just as a theory and didn’t immediately leap into arguments over theology?
We know from history that various scientific theories were popular for a time, but eventually pooped out and were replaced by better theories. In the 1700’s, phlogiston, that mysterious and undetectable element thought to cause combustion and rust, reigned as king for almost a hundred years within the scientific community. Or, the immovable continent theory, with now sunken land bridges that allowed flora and fauna to migrate over vast areas, made perfect sense until the arrival of tectonic plate theory. The geocentric theory, which according to popular myth was an early theology vs. science battleground, was replaced by the heliocentric theory.
The one common element in these discarded theories was the support given them by the scientists of those times. Contrary to today’s media propaganda, the geocentric theory was avidly supported by scientists as well as theologians; the famous astronomer Tycho Brahe and his pupil Johannes Keppler were among them. And, it’s shocking today to learn how accurately early astronomers could calculate planetary movements based on a completely incorrect theory. How do we know that evolution isn’t just another one hit wonder on it’s way to extinction?
To serve political ideology and acquire taxpayer funding, evolution supporters have been forced to make some lofty claims. For example, evolution is considered both an indisputable fact and an evolving theory. The fact part comes from the claim that evolution is the only conceivable explanation for historic biological origins and development, while the theory part comes from disagreements within the scientific community over the specific mechanisms of evolution. Basically, we are being asked to accept neo-darwinism as fact without knowing precisely how it works – a sort of 21st century version of phlogiston.
Then there is the intellectual stumbling block over the fact that evolution is impossible to falsify. Since evolution is itself a “fact”, it must, by definition, explain every observable contradiction in historic biological development. And, not surprisingly, evolution claims to explain very slow development of new species and also very rapid development of new species. But, it also explains lack of detectable, directional change within a species for millions of years (chrono-species), while also explaining reverse evolution where a species actually de-evolves – basically it explains away every observable contradiction without specifically explaining anything, so how can we possibly prove it isn’t true?
By constructing the theory very loosely and attributing all contradictions to the mysterious power of natural selection, we learn that species that show no discernible change for 200 million years had “evolved enough” for their environmental niche. Species that de-evolved had “over-evolved” for their respective niche and ended up with the biological booby prize. Fast change, slow change, no change, reverse change, it’s all rock and roll to evolutionists.
It’s true that scientists can’t explain how gravity works either and quantum theory addresses an even more inexplicable phenomena. Light as both a wave and a particle simultaneously is a mind blowing contradiction. With the Heisenberg Principle, we can’t even observe events at the quantum level without affecting the results. But, what the public isn’t told is that science can make remarkably accurate mathematical predictions using these same theories. We can’t observe activity at the quantum level, but by using the mathematics of probability analysis we can derive useful benefits from quantum mechanics. But, is it fair to compare a biological theory to physics and expect evolution to make precise and verifiable predictions as a test of its veracity?
What if, to be fair, we compared evolution theory to the germ theory of disease. The Center for Disease Control can literally choose from thousands of specific hypothesis regarding which microorganisms cause which diseases. And we know with a high degree of accuracy how such diseases are transmitted. We also know with relative certainty which antibiotics are useful in treating infectious microorganisms. Or, we can try to block the disease pathways based on these same hypothesis.
Turning to evolution, we don’t know the various factors actually employed by natural selection as it goes about its mysterious function. We can’t determine how genetic mutations affect morphology and generate evolutionary changes, or even if they actually do generate such change. Compared to the precision and predictive power of the germ theory, evolution is only slightly more specific than astrology.
Are all scientific theories equally robust or equally well-constructed? Do all theories explain observed facts with equal elegance and do all theories possess equal predictive abilities? As scientific theories go, is evolution the hot, new Mercedes or the old, busted Vega?
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 6, 2007
If evolution is going to be disproven it will be scientists that disprove it.
The question above of science being invalidated because it questions its own ideas or looks for new ones (I am paraphrasing), has an answer that is simply no, it is not invalidated. That is how science works. However Creationism cannot be included as a rival theory because it is clearly unscientific.
Above was posed the question to cite one scientist that agrees the earth is 6-10000 years old. Well you can't. Simply prominent scientists do nto beleive such nonsense. However this idea is being propagated to Americans that it is indeed a young earth. Scientists are not the ones propagating this misinformation, evangelicals have taken it upon themselves to do so. This is a diservice to society more than if evolution was indeed not true. Scientists do not have an agenda to disprove any deity. Science will always find the truth. Unfortunately the process takes longer than people would like. This length of tiem is still not a valid reason to use verses in a religious book to trump the scientific method. Science is naturalistic. Evolution does not try to explain how all life started.
The argument used against the big bang of how did everything start, can be applied to a view of a creator as well. How can it be accepted the creator appeared out of the void, yet matter could not have possibly appeared unless it was created. Like Richard Dawkins says… Who created the creator? How can a creator just have formed?
The debate of evolution is becoming tangled in political and religious agendas. There is no reason to interfere in the scientist's work. If you choose not to agree with them, then go to Sunday school and lean creationism. It will most likely not affect the world in any way. Interfere in science due to politics and religion, and misinformation spreads.
Comment by Mournblade | March 6, 2007
Mountain Man:
"I did not ask evolution to explain how things came to exist, I asked anyone to explain this, by whatever means."
Nonsense. You've repeatedly tied the concepts together, and repeatedly directed the challenge at evolution, insisting that it's meaningless to debate the evidence for evolution unless someone can answer where the universe came from.
" The phrase, “given things exist…” is utter nonsense. Because things exist, they don’t have to be explained?"
No, its just that evolutionary biologists don't have to explain them. They aren't even qualified to do so.
For the last time Do you have anything coherent to say against evolutionary theory or the evidence for common descent. If so, and if you fear misrepresentation, then please state your objections all at once and clearly, and lets see what you've got.
Comment by Deane Emmeret | March 6, 2007
"What if we examined evolution strictly as a scientific theory and took theology out of the picture?"
It IS out of the picture. Read an actual biology journal: you are going to find technical debates over the arrangement of clades based on molecular evidence, not discussions of God. Many of these biologists believe in God, many don't, but in the actual, real scientific fields, these things do not really ever come up, because they are irrelevant to the work being done.
The original author of this piece is who brought God into the picture. It is he that asserted falsely (a falsehood he has not acknowledged or attempted to correct) that Darwin thought the existence of god was a "damnable doctrine" and that evolution is some sort of complete worldview whose aim is to replace god belief.
"How do we know that evolution isn’t just another one hit wonder on it’s way to extinction?"
Perhaps it is: any science is always open to the possibility that any idea could be trumped by new evidence. But simply asserting that this might happen is not the same thing as being able to better explain the evidence, or having evidence to the contrary. Lacking that, flailing about previously important theories is pointless. And as a plain matter of fact, the evidence for common descent via evolutionary change is so convergent, so diverse, so robust, that none of the theories you note even compare in the depth or quality of their evidence.
"For example, evolution is considered both an indisputable fact and an evolving theory."
You can try to paint this as illicit, but it's perfectly reasonable that it's both. There are big picture answer that are almost utterly certain, and details of debate over one particular possibility and another that are not, but whom the debate over does not impact the overall picture no matter which view wins out. You can only, as many many creationists have done, frame these smaller debates as challenges to common descent and natural selection if you egregiously lie and misrepresent and misinform people about what is being discussed and how it all fits into biology as a subject.
"Then there is the intellectual stumbling block over the fact that evolution is impossible to falsify. Since evolution is itself a “fact”, it must, by definition, explain every observable contradiction in historic biological development. And, not surprisingly, evolution claims to explain very slow development of new species and also very rapid development of new species. But, it also explains lack of detectable, directional change within a species for millions of years (chrono-species), while also explaining reverse evolution where a species actually de-evolves"
There is no such thing as "de-evolution." If you have such a confused notion about about what evolution is saying, then no wonder you think that it can "explains anything" arbitrarily. But, in fact, it does not. Your supposed contradictions and "explains anything" claims are as silly as saying that astrophysics explains things in space blowing apart and coming together: no matter what happens, basic astrophysics is true! What a crazy theory!
"By constructing the theory very loosely and attributing all contradictions to the mysterious power of natural selection, we learn that species that show no discernible change for 200 million years had “evolved enough” for their environmental niche. Species that de-evolved had “over-evolved” for their respective niche and ended up with the biological booby prize. Fast change, slow change, no change, reverse change, it’s all rock and roll to evolutionists."
It might well seem that way if you never bothered to read what they actually say about these subjects, about what sorts of forces are at play, how we measure them, how we debate their contributions to one event or another, and so on. Again, your caricature is as ill-targeted as asserting that whether an object floats or sinks, it's all the same to those crazy fluid dynamicists!
"But, is it fair to compare a biological theory to physics and expect evolution to make precise and verifiable predictions as a test of its veracity?"
In fact, it does so: every si