Three Voices on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Posted February 4th, 2009 by David A. Pendleton
image:
Steven Goldberg, Bleached Faith: The Tragic Cost When Religion is Forced into the Public Square (2008)
Edward Humes, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America’s Soul (2007)
Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul (2008)
In 2009, observances of the birth of Charles Darwin (b. 1809) and the publication of his Origin of Species (© 1859) will provide occasions for public conversation and controversy about evolution, Intelligent Design (ID), and faith.
Already from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Dover, Pennsylvania, school boards have been making legal headlines in recent years. While public school science classes have for decades taught evolutionary theory, increasingly constituents have asked that ID be included in the public school science curriculum.
Three authors have recently contributed to the discussion with their respective books about faith, evolution, legal battles, and ID.
These three books were inspired, at least in part, by the December 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, which was tried before U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III after the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, voted to require ID in its science curriculum.1
"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution," wrote Judge Jones, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
Steven Goldberg’s Bleached Faith: The Tragic Cost When Religion is Forced into the Public Square chronicles more generally the church-state implications of posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings, teaching ID, and the promotion of private faith through public (i.e., government) means — all from the perspective of a law professor. The account of ID curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania, is but one example of many he discusses as an illustration supporting his argument against a "bleached faith," that is, a faith emptied of its vibrant color and thereafter merely an "empty symbolism that diminishes the power of real belief." He acknowledges that the intent of some of its proponents may be benign, but he doubts that the consequences for religion or the public square will be beneficial.
Goldberg confesses in Bleached Faith that he came to the conclusion that religion could provide him "a sense of humility, faith, and values that science and secularism cannot." While Bleached Faith is mainly concerned with efforts to display the Ten Commandments on government property, his remarks on the legal controversy involving ID are worth considering.
He reminds readers, for example, that creationism and ID are not necessarily identical. While there are literal seven-day-creation-week creationists promoting ID, there are also supporters of ID who do indeed believe in theistic evolution.
"In its broadest outlines," Goldberg explains, "intelligent design does not dispute that every organism on earth, including humans, might have evolved from earlier organisms or that this might have taken place over millions of years. But supporters of the theory want to teach public school students that only an ‘intelligent designer’ can explain the gaps in current Darwinian accounts of certain features in living organisms" (p. 49).
While Goldberg is sympathetic toward faith, on the legal issue before the court, he agrees with Judge Jones that mandatory inclusion of ID in a public school science curriculum fails to pass constitutional muster:
"The court found that ‘the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.’ Leading scientific groups had rejected the notion that ID was a science. It was not testable, nor did it lead to peer-reviewed publications. ID was based, the judge said, ‘upon a false dichotomy, namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.’ The court had no difficulty in concluding that the board members who put ID in the Dover public schools were not interested in raising the level of scientific literacy in the student body. One had openly called ‘creationism’ his number-one issue .... The judge concluded that the Dover policy had the purpose of advancing religion and that it endorsed religion in violation of the non-Establishment Clause of the Constitution, as that clause had been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court" (pp. 49-50).
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision did not make new law but only determined that inclusion of ID in a public school science curriculum violated the Establishment Clause.
Goldberg’s contribution to the conversation consists of (1) his situating of Kitzmiller v. Dover and ID in the context of Establishment Clause doctrine and, perhaps as important, (2) his sobering indictment of what ID does to religion: "With intelligent design God is introduced to explain gaps in Darwinian explanations of organisms. Of course, there are such gaps, and scientists are always working on filling them, either with existing theories or with new ones. Until they do, God is the explanation for the bacterium’s flagellum. But he’s not called God. He is an ‘intelligent designer.’ ... No one believes this. It does not represent the real religious faith that nourishes millions of Americans. That faith exists outside science, because it does not speak to questions that science can answer and it does not turn on the results of laboratory experiments. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the nature of the soul, or any of the other teachings of actual religions. Science cannot provide the sense of humility or the guidance on how to live our lives that these religions provide" (p. 51).
Edward Humes’ Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America’s Soul is the most readable of the three books and chronicles the ID controversy of Dover, Pennsylvania,as only a journalist can. Humes views Kitzmiller v. Dover as a modern-day Scopes Monkey Trial. His is an imbedded reporter’s frontline account of the culture war between impassioned devotees of religion and dispassionate practitioners of science — neither of which proves to be as impassioned or dispassionate as some would think.
Moreover, Humes points out that the combatants were not necessarily the true believers versus worldly atheists. Indeed, there were believers on both sides of the debate. A leading opponent of ID in Dover, for example, was a devout Catholic. Believing God is Creator evidently does not necessarily lead to belief that ID should be part of a public school science curriculum: "Catholics generally have no problem with evolution, and church doctrine warns against taking the Bible too literally. Catholic theologians emphasize the metaphorical nature of the Old and New Testaments, so scripture and Darwin are not on a collision course as far as the Vatican is concerned" (p. 36).
Humes arrives at a position not unlike that of the late Stephen J. Gould’s NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). That is to say, there is no clash between the scientific method and faith, because they deal with separate aspects of reality. The objects of faith (i.e., virtues, values, morals, matters of the spirit) are not readily amenable to measurement by the instruments of science. "Science doesn’t rule out the supernatural – it doesn’t rule out God as a cause – because scientists are small-minded or conspiring to cover up evidence of design, as creationism and ID often allege. Science rules out the supernatural because it is science that is limited, whereas God is not" (p. 267).
Kenneth R. Miller’s Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul is a first-hand account by a Christian biologist and expert witness who actually testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. The book’s title comes from a derogatory term employed by some creationists in their critique of evolutionary theory.
Miller’s expert opinion was that ID was not science and therefore should not be required of a public school science curriculum. A Brown University biologist, Miller takes issue with those who would criticize science for focusing exclusively on material or naturalistic answers to scientific questions: "So, what of the true design of life? We live in a material world. In many ways that realization is at the very heart of science itself. By seeking material, or natural, explanations for what we see and experience, science has changed the world – or at least our view of it. We no longer look for gods to pull the sun across the sky, or evil spirits to explain our daughter’s illness" (p. 118).
Miller’s input to the narrative is not limited to the scientific issues, for he also sheds light on the heated emotions involved. "When I served as the opening witness in the September 2005 trial in federal court in Pennsylvania on the issue of teaching ‘intelligent design’ in public schools," recounts Miller, "I was critical of the notion that ID is authentic science, and I opposed the attempts of political authorities (the local school board) to force teachers to insert it into their lessons. ... What struck me about the reaction to Dover, however, was the religious character of almost every hostile comment. In addition to being told where I would likely spend eternity (no need for warm clothes, one e-mail assured me), I was repeatedly lectured about the disrespect that I and other scientists had shown for the Almighty. Evolution, according to these critics, takes God out of the picture, and therefore must be opposed by people of faith at all costs. How dare I call myself a Christian and speak on behalf of Darwin?" (pp. 158-159).
It is apparent from Miller that at least some of the heated exchanges were due not to actual friction between faith and reason but to the assumptions brought to religion and science. The Creation Narrative in the first chapters of Genesis, for example, says what it says. What the narrative leaves unsaid, however, is what the text means. The answer to that depends, like any other text, on the sort of genre of literature one assumes one is reading. If the text is a historical-scientific text, it will require arguably a fairly literal reading. If, on the other hand, it is a text concerned with matters of ultimate concern, meaning, and purpose, then perhaps a less literal (i.e., metaphorical or poetic) reading is appropriate.
"Some of this hostility," writes Miller, "has surely been generated by those who choose to read the creation accounts of Genesis literally. ... Genesis was written in a prescientific age, in the language of the day and in an attempt to communicate great truths to the people of that age. Those truths include above all the notion that we are here along with all other existence as the result of the creative power of God. They do not include an attempt to teach science" (pp. 159-160).
While these opinions are rendered perhaps outside the area of a biologist’s expertise, they nonetheless reflect patterns of thought adopted by many who seek responsibly to reconcile faith and reason, religion and science.
In conclusion, space permits three final observations regarding Intelligent Design. First, Kitzmiller v. Dover is not the last word on ID or on evolution versus religious faith. It is part of the on-going discussion whereby the public through its actions and even elections must strive to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of either a government-enforced secularity or government-compelled religiosity. It is not just the job of judges, board of education members, or state legislators; it’s the obligation all citizens, individually and collectively, to safeguard our freedoms, including religious freedom, as we seek to educate the next generation.
While freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, the government’s role is neither to promote nor to prohibit faith. Goldberg underscores for us that the "strength of real religion in America today is not undercut by the limits on government-supported religion in public settings. The true power of religion flows from restricting the embrace of government while protecting free exercise. We are neither France, where secularism reigns supreme, nor Iran, where one faith rules the roost. In France, students in public schools cannot wear the Muslim head scarf; in Iran, they must. In America, the American Civil Liberties Union and the religious right agree that every public school student has a right to wear religious garb if and only if he or she so desires" (p. 5).
Second, intelligent design may not yet be ready for introduction into public school curricula. But that does not mean it will never lead to scientific theories appropriate for inclusion in public school science curricula. Centuries, if not millennia, passed before scientists were able to determine the borders between alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy, superstition and modern medicine. It may be that at some point the handiwork of a Designer is not otherwise explainable other than by reference to, well, a Designer. Until then, churches, mosques, and synagogues – and their religious schools – have their work cut out for them.
Third, in this age where "American Exceptionalism" is so often derided, when pride in one’s Nation is considered intellectually embarrassing, it is fitting to recall that "the unique blend of free exercise and non-establishment — our insistence on avoiding both intolerant secularism and suffocating theocracy — should be a source of pride." (Goldberg, p. 128). School boards have of late focused on scientific literacy; perhaps an equal amount of attention to civic literacy is in order.
In the end, the Creator we seek to understand and faithfully serve is greater than any scientific theory can describe or circumscribe. And we are blessed to live today in a society where, as Humes and Miller implicitly remind us, we can pursue truth of science and Truth of Savior free of persecution by the government.
1 - http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
David A. Pendleton, an administrative law judge, formerly served as an elected state legislator and a policy advisor to Hawaii’s Governor. His wife, Noemi, a Seventh-day Adventist, served as an elected member of the Hawaii State Board of Education from 1996-2000, when Hawaii addressed ID and its public school science curriculum.
You can buy Bleached Faith
Comments
David - Thanks much for adding these three books into the mix. The topic seems so...extensive and varied... that it's a little hard to know what one would even comment on - especially if one hasn't read all the books! I think the main thing that I appreciate after reading your reviews, however, is the fact that's it's not just Side A vs. Side B. There are many facets and things to think about in this discussion, and though trying to narrow it down to a sort of good vs. bad debate might make it easier to know where we stand, it doesn't lead us to any kind of a better position or dialogue.
Thanks for the reviews David. I think the Dover trial was a fascinating glimpse into the ongoing debate. I read Judge Jones' decision after the trial and it is one of the best summaries of the issues and problems around ID I've ever read. He's a good writer and seems to avoid the legal jargon one would expect.
It was especially interesting coming from a Christian conservative appointee. It was simply unconscionable that he ended up having to get federal marshall protection for himself and his family due to the seriousness of the death threats he received.
NOVA did an excellent program on Dover too called Judgement Day.
With your recommendation, Beth, I had to see if I could find the decision--which turned out to be quite simple. Here is the link for others who might like to read the judge's history of the ID Movement. It comes fairly early in the decision document:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The bitterness that often marks both sides of this debate can make me tired. I appreciate when it is written and talked about objectively, Thanks, David, for taking us through these books and thus enhancing our understanding.
I wonder if we will ever see the day when science and religion can be at peace with each other acknowledging the significant contributions of the other to life as we know it today.
Bonnie, amen to the tiring, and amen to the "I wonder if?" I think it's possible. But I think it would take a pretty big movement in both the science community and the faith community toward a kind of humility - the kind that is willing to recognize certain territories that either or both community/system cannot explain and is not "in charge of." The humility to accept answerless questions (or at least great mysteries) and varying views.
Thanks, Mr. Pendleton, for the excellent review. Since you are active in politics, you may appreciate this commentary on the intersection of faith and science in the public square: http://www.xkcd.com/154/ :-)
I'm skeptical about the day of science and religon being at peace in Adventism so long as religion fails to move. It isn't as if science needs to move. It has been filling in the pieces of the puzzle for a couple hundred years and isn't likely to now take it apart and see if the whole thing can go back together in a different way! Scientists and theologians see eye to eye on these issues provided the theologians aren't literalists/fundamentalists. That was clear at Glacier View II. There is no conflict except when created by those who insist the Bible's "clear reading" trumps the evidence found in nature.
The last thing a creationist should do or be is dogmatic.
First cause is hardly provable nor is process. Chance seems mathematically impssible. Intelligent design or deistics views the most becoming. The degrees of adaptation and the extent of devilment unknown and unknowable.
A bird feeder at the breakfast window is a great teacher of behavior and diversity. No matter what we see or know they will always be how and why.
Certainly the world is far more complex than Noah's Ark would suggest. This is not to the ramparts question. It is a thoughtful, patience, study with a respect for the divine. Tom
Hi all,
I've spent probably 1000 hours debating evolution and creation...and the problem is that evolutionists CONSISTENTLY set standards for creation science to reach that they can't even begin to reach themselves and that in actual fact creation science and Bible science can meet far better than evolution theories can (when I use the term evolution, I'll always be referring to Darwinian evolution). This is what is so grossly unjust about almost every trial on ID and creationism that has happened. Evolutionists demand observable proof of God creating the earth for example. The equivalent demand for them would be for them to provide observable evidence of abiogenesis. Nobody questions natural selection (a theory first discovered and published by a creationist). It's been observed trillions of times and yet in the 1500s, scientists didn't realize that animals reproduce only after their kind. They believed in spontaneous generation. So, the Bible in this and 100s of other areas predicted the true scientific theory correctly. The equivalent theory that evolution must prove WITH OBSERVABLE/TESTABLE evidence..not just fancy logic which doesn't at ALL make ANYTHING scientific...is that one animal type can change into another genus. Use bacteria or any short life span organism you wish. Even after you prove that it's possible. That doesn't prove that it DID happen that way. There are just mountains of assumptions on the evolution side that they refuse to admit and never begin to climb while demanding that we not use even a single assumption.
One of the best creationist authors I've read, Dr. Walter Brown, has a list of over 131 evidences for Creation at this link, “The Scientific Case for Creation”. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
If double standards are not used and evidence is limited to what is observable and testable (ie. REAL SCIENCE), creation science wins hands down as by FAR the most scientific theory.
Most people don't realize that even many of the foundational concepts of evolution were pioneered and even published by creationists and it's just wrong that evolutionists take credit for them or use them as evidence to support evolution when they do nothing of the sort and are actually very strong scientific supports for Bible science:
1) NATURAL SELECTION: Natural selection was published by Edward Blyth in the 1830s (see www.thedarwinpapers.com chapter 2).
2) FALSIFIABILITY: Evolutionists often mistakenly credit Karl Popper with devising the concept of falsifiability. Actually, the idea was articulated earlier by G.K. Chesterton, a creationist and author, in 1925, while Popper was still studying for his PhD, and nine years before Popper wrote Logik der Forschung (http://creationwiki.org/Falsifiability). Interestingly, Karl Popper himself said that Darwinian theory was an untestable theory:
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program (Unended Quest, 1976).
Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; but, he countered, the fittest organisms are defined as those who survive, which makes the statement tautological.
3) THE BIG BANG: The Big Bang which is actually one of the very best evidences for a creator if it is correct was theorized by Georges Lematre, a religious scientist and actually a priest.
One more thing, why should truth be banned just because it comes from religion? Frankly, I think we should be teaching facts about how muslim scientists were pioneers in many areas including inventing the scientific method itself long before Europeans. Truth and facts should not be banned from education just because they were found in religions. That's a grave hindrance to progress especially when you realize the fact that most branches of science were pioneered by Christians. Should we just get rid of all these branches because people of faith were involved. That's ludicrous...and it is just as ludicrous that ANY truth should be banned from education just because of it's origin.
Anyway...much more I could say...but it's just so disappointing consistently that the evolutionist establishment gets to set standards for creationists that they don't even BEGIN to reach themselves and in most cases, they are unquestioningly allowed to do so, even by Christians. Sometimes, I think it would be very helpful to have a lot more training in logic in our schools and esp. universities so people can identify these grossly unfair standards better.
Bryan
oops...correction on above..not 1000...but 1000s of hours :).
Bryan
I'm not a scientist, so my questions may be blown away by someone more qualified than myself. But isn't science something that emerges from research in the laboratory? Are not the primary tenants if ID based on just such "scientific" research? If so, then it becomes laughable that ID is not science.
Evolution is taught without permitting the idea of a designer. That imposes upon my freedom to believe in one. Does that not make evolution a religious view? If so, then we should oppose the teaching of evolution.
Surely we must require the teaching of both, or the teaching of neither. Education has something to do with thinking, and the teaching of both fosters critical thinking. Schools are supposed to educate. If only one theory is taught, that is not education; it is indoctrination.
Leave indoctrination to the church. They do that very well. If the school is not required to educate, but allowed to indoctrinate, then it becomes the religion of the state. Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?
Certainly the world is far more complex than Noah's Ark would suggest. This is not to the ramparts question. It is a thoughtful, patience, study with a respect for the divine. Tom
--
Tom,
Have you ever read studies on how many life forms the ark could have held? Go to this link for a short summary. There are books on this. It's not as hard as you might have thought:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
Karpistian,
Very true. Evolution is one of the most dogmatic and "repressive of other ideas" beliefs in existence (although there are certainly others). The No Intelligence Allowed documents just a bit of that. There just is not fair investigation of alternatives to evolution that include any religious content. Evolution long ago became a religion and dogma that persecutes other beliefs nearly as much as the Catholic church did during the middle ages. It for SURE is a religion because it requires ENORMOUS faith in unseen and undemonstrable hypotheses and in addition as you say, it expends enormous effort on trying to crush nearly all critical thinking from any religious viewpoint. I have been debating this for decades and have come to the conclusion after reading MUCH on both sides that it takes far more faith ironically to be an evolutionist than a creationist. I 100% agree that either BOTH should be taught or neither taught.
Bryan
Thanks for linking that Bonnie, I should have done done it myself. Part of what is sad about the entire sordid thing was how very badly some of the defendants behaved, clearly believing that the end justifies the means. The trial is a field day not just for biologists but for sociologists, ethicists, and psychologists. Fascinating how low people can go when they are sure God is on their side and they are fighting "evil".
I watched "Judgement Day" with my children and was glad I could at least point to Judge Jones and Kenneth Miller as examples of Christians who acted with dignity, intelligence, and integrity. Because it was really slim pickings.
It is quite a spectacle to see the natural evidence one presents to justify a supernatural event. Either an event is supernatural, needing no explanation, or it is a natural event that also needs no explanation. Quite a paradox!
Bryan
How many cows have you fed for a year? Or horses, or elephants? How much manure have you shoveled in the same time frame? The 1940's college barn at old E.M.C. was bigger than the ark counting the silos and it held feed for a lot less than the Zoo of Noah. I don't doubt the story--but there was divine intervention for sure. Never-the-less, it is understandable why it engenders wide spread unbelief. That was my point. Tom
Bryan
Thank you for the affirmation. Much appreciated.
Tom
Off the subject I guess, but what about the fresh water for both animals and man on the ark. A years supply would take a really big wineskin.
Tom,
Read the link and the book. There is no difficulty with manure (or water). Do you really think God had not thought of those issues? Noah and the antedeluvians weren't cavemen. There's a lot of evidence that they were just as smart as us and smarter in some areas and all kinds of ideas they could have developed to take care of any problems even if God wasn't the designer of the ark (which he was).
I don't know how big the EMC barn was, but do you really understand the size of the ark? It could hold something like 569 train cars and only a 3rd of those would be needed to hold the animals, the rest could be used for food, etc.
Bryan
Bryan
I believe the flood story. You don't have to sell me. But it does take faith--reason alone does not lead one to our conclusion. Nor have we been handed down a detailed account.
I like the story of the little boy who came home from Sunday School. His mother asked him what he had learned. He said;
"Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt and the king and his army followed. Moses run right up to the shore of the Red Sea and had his Corp of Engineers build a pontoon bridge across and then they blew it up before the army could get across. His mother said with some surprise: "Is that what the teacher told you? The little boy said: "No, but if you don't believe my story, you sure won't believe hers!" Cheers. Tom
Bryan,
I recall reading Walt Brown's hydroplate theory while studying physics as an undergraduate. Applying basic physics principles to his ideas turned up some serious flaws in my view, like the fact that the water from his underground chambers would escape into the earth as steam due to the pressure of the collapsing rock above. After that, I didn't take much stock in Brown any more.
Your point about the boxcars made me curious, and I think you're overshooting. If we take the widely accepted dimensions of the ark (45 ft * 75 ft * 450 ft), and the smallest boxcar dimensions I could find (40 ft * 15 ft * 10 ft), then only about 250 boxcars would fit in the ark. I'm no species expert, but I have serious doubts that they'd all fit in. I will take a look at your reference, though - thanks.
Saw the No Intelligence Allowed documentary out of curiosity, but (in my opinion) when they got to the 'Hitler was an evolutionist, and Darwin's ideas led to the holocaust,' it got a little ridiculous. I kept wanting to see in the film why ID was such a serious theory, but basically it kept repeating stories of people losing academic positions due to expression of ID ideas, and never got into what those ideas really were.
That said, from a decidedly non-expert viewpoint, I get disappointed that the hard-core people on either side of the debate seem unwilling to listen to what the other side is saying. I find myself suspicious of anyone who "knows" they're right.
Jeff
Tom,
Yes, believing the flood takes faith. But, most of evolution requires faith many orders of magnitude greater than those of creation/flood science and especially Bible science. Most of the questions regarding the flood have been worked out with quite reasonable answers and many have scientifically tested evidence. It's nearly impossible to prove exactly how something DID happen on either side...but we can prove quite well how it probably happened or could have happened in most respects. But, yes, some faith will always be required. The point though is that evolution requires enormously more faith than creation/the flood.
Jeff,
I cited a webpage on the size of Noah's ark and box cars which summarizes a book with all the minute details you could wish for. Go to the link first, read it. Then if that's not enough, buy the book :).
On Dr. Brown, he's got a Ph.d. from MIT and used to be an evolutionist. While he doesn't claim that his theory is perfect or infallible and welcomes critiques (which it seems you would approve of since you don't like people who "know they're right"), I'm VERY certain that he has not ignored basic physics laws. He's extremely qualified. Write to him directly if you wish and I'm sure there's a good answer for the problem that you think is so big. He welcomes questions and debates and most of his evidence is from evolutionists which makes the theory a lot stronger. He's quite well informed about physics and uses quite a bit of it in his book. In this section for example, he talks about super critical water, cites experiments, etc. So, I think that you may not have read him carefully enough or maybe you've only heard about him from skeptics instead of reading him directly.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html
One possible confirmation of another part of his theory is here.
http://truthmatters.info/2008/02/25/could-creationist-walt-brown-be-righ...
But, creation scientists are just like any other scientists. The Bible tells us a flood happened, but doesn't tell us much about how. So, they are trying to figure this out with a variety of figures and critiquing each other and modifying them to fit the evidence and problems that come up just as scientists in any field do. Here's a short summary of some of the most common flood theories/models:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp
If evolutionists are allowed to have multiple theories, go through peer review, modify theories, then the same must be allowed to creation scientists. Sadly though, evolutionists have gotten enough power to ban pretty much all discussion of creationist theories in mainstream journals. This is GROSSLY unscientific since science is supposed to allow all theories that have testable evidence and Bible science has FAR more of that than evolution does.
As far as Darwin and Hitler, the connection is extremely solid. Numerous Nazis were evolutionistis and intentionally trying to implement evolution on a human being scale. Darwin himself talked about genocide in Tasmania being beneficial. Read chapters 12-14 of this book:
www.thedarwinpapers.com for quite a bit more proof of the connection.
As to evidence for creation (which I think is more truthful than ID), I'm not sure what level of evidence you wish. Here are 2:
1) Watch "The Case for a Creator" at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyOVEerPC8. Watch all 6 parts. Only 1 hour and not comprehensive due to that, but very powerful arguments.
2) If you are more of a professional scientist, watch these videos by Dr. Walter Veith. He's a former extremely virulent atheist/evolutionist with a ph.d. in zoology, but had 1st hand proof of supernatural forces and then began checking the evidence for evolution and found that there was much fraud and non-scientific speculations. Now, he's a creationist. Very interesting story and testimony. His story is 1st hand evidence of both the power of God and of Satan and the Genesis conflict series of videos is very powerful evidence showing that creation is very scientific and why evolution is not scientific.
A) http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/media-Walter-Veith-testimony.html (this is a summary of his change from virulent atheist to Christian creationist. Not very much science here, but very interesting and solid proof of the supernatural).
B) GENESIS CONFLICT SERIES: amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html (Goes pretty deep scientifically on many scientific topics in the evolution-creation issue although it's still designed for laymen. 1st one is on dating. 2nd is on the fossil record and very brilliant. Many others are very good too.)
Bryan
Comment and Question from David Pendleton
Is this the same Bryan Bissell who now covers Washington State Politics for http://www.politickerwa.com?
I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to pretend that I am. But I would argue that belief in God does NOT require one to believe in creation or to doubt evolution. And at the same time, belief in evolution does not necessarily mean belief in Darwinian evolution. There are about as many versions of evolutionary theory as there are versions of democracy.
God is Creator, and as the Holy and Omnipotent One, our God can employ whatever means God sees fitting to bring about creation. If it means setting in motion a deistic form of evolution, so be it. In the end, science will neither prove the existence of, nor disprove the existence of, God.
God has obviously so fashioned reality so as to afford room for faith -- such a universe would preclude being able to prove God's existence (or disprove God's existence) through some sort of laboratory experiment.
The Book of Genesis is God's revelation about our origins, the opening chapter in his library of books we call the Bible, which are more concerned with telling us how to live in relationship with God than the mundane details about how, when, and how long it took the earth and its creatures to be made.
In other words, Scripture is more about how to go to heaven, not so much about how the heavens go.
Like our Christian ancestors who long ago dealt with the new ideas and theories of Copernicus and Galileo, we too with attentive but humble spirits can find a way to reconcile the latest findings of science with the truth God has revealed in Scripture. For surely the book of Nature is authored by the same God.
Not too many centuries ago, many thought an earth-centered solar system or universe was taught by Scripture. We have since learned this is not so.
May God continue to guide and direct us as we humbly marvel at his Revelation. A Christian approach requires us to speak truth with love and gentleness. Would that the world see Christians as seekers after truth who serve as thoughtful and pleasant companions on life's journey.
Dave Pendleton
Bryan
I wonder why it is so easy to be misunderstood. I still have Harold Coffin's book Creation-Accident or Design. he gives a lot of space to the flood evidence. I spent three days with him as a room mate at a conference session. I am a creationist and I believe there is sufficient evidence of Noah's flood. I put little confidence in finding Noah's ark and what it would prove.
I spent six years in evolution oriented universities. I found nothing as compelling as Dr. Coffin's work.
Isn't it interesting that neither one of us can either prove or change history--we will just have to wait to find out.
That is why my faith is in a Creator/Redeemer God--worthy of my worship, devotion, study, and sharing. There just isn't time vain arguments.
Tom
Tom,
I am sorry for writing in ways that made you feel misunderstood. I didn't actually think you doubted the flood/creation. But, you said, "Certainly the world is far more complex than Noah's Ark would suggest." which means that you think there is not a rational explanation for the # of species compared to the size of Noah's Ark and we can only plead faith (which isn't very convincing to skeptics). But, in fact there is a rational explanation that makes a lot of sense even to skeptics (and I've been discussing these kinds of topics with them for decades) that you don't seem to know about and really should be aware of so you can be more effective in reaching them. I was just trying to enlighten you about a very rational and well thought out and researched defense so that you may be able to share more effectively. I'm sorry if you took it that I thought you are a skeptic, etc. I didn't mean it that way.
Regarding finding Noah's Ark, it is pretty conclusive that it has been seen in history LONG after Noah used it. Numerous unrelated sources recount seeing it. Whether it will be found or not before Jesus, I do not know. If so, it would definitely add more credibility to the Bible...although of course with some people it doesn't matter how logically or rationally you present things. They've decided to reject it anyway. And I agree that witnessing about the changes that God has made in our lives and the love that we have experienced is quite a bit more effective with most people. Logic works with a small percentage of the population that is actually willing to change their beliefs according to rationality and the weight of evidence..but that percentage is EXTREMELY small unfortunately, inside the church and even more so outside the church. The vast majority continue believing what they grew up with, or what they were taught in the teens/university years no matter how much evidence is provided. I've had the privilege of living in 4 very different countries and cultures. I thank God for this because it has basically forced me to be a lot more open minded to new evidence and changing my worldview and I have experienced a lot of benefits and come closer to the truth in many areas because of this, but I am still on the journey towards understanding more truth and more deeply. I know some consider me very stubborn...and I am. I'm very stubborn in sticking to the truth that I know until you provide MORE proof of an alternative belief than the one I currently have. I OFTEN say this to atheists...you can't just criticize Christianity and expect me to change...you have to provide evidence that your worldview answers more of life's questions and gives better quality of life than my present belief and that your theories have more evidence to back them up than my worldview. THEN, any rational and wise person who loves truth should consider changing their worldview, but not until then. So, yes, I'm stubborn...but only to a point where the weight of evidence becomes larger than the evidence I have for my beliefs..once that happens...I become very interested and easy to change :) because there is just no rationality or benefit whatsoever to continue in erroneous thinking or living.
Bryan
Bryan
Genesis is written on a need to know basis. The story reads, two unclean and seven clean animals entered the ark two by two, male and female. For the unclean, it is obvious a pair would be necessary. With the seven was it one male and six females? How does one pair up seven?
The story was not written for accountants, or scientists, or statistians.
What we do know, there was a flood and some plants, animals,
and humans survived the ordeal by God's providence. Many life forms did not as the fossil evidence demonstrates.
I see the story as Dr. Coffin did. Many scoffers do not. One cannot make believers out of unbelivers by reading the account in Genesis. It takes the sum of Scripture and the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies coupled with man's obvious need for redemption to accept that God did: 1. Create. 2. Provide for Redemption if man fell. 3. Destroyed the earth by a flood but saved a few to repopulate the earth.
4. Sent His Son as our Redeemer, 5. That Son revealed the Character of God by His life. 6. Atoned for man's rebellion, 7. Sits on the right hand of the Father. 7. Will come again in Glory and will recreate a perfect world. Those like Noah will enjoy that New Earth with Jesus Christ as Creator, Savior, Lord, and King rather than Adam as man's federal man. Tom
Dave - Thanks for putting it in a larger perspective. For me, realizing that being absolutely certain of one or another specific explanation for how-the-world-started isn't necessary for a life of faith was a bit of a turning point - it allowed me to relax a little and start to take in the possibilities with interest and humility, rather than getting defensive, worried, or guilty.
Intelligent Design is debunked nicely in the following articles:
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/New_Republic_ID.pdf
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/Behe,%20New%20Republic.pd...
I am a professional geologist. I was trained in creationism. I believe it no longer. I suggest you don't either.
The main problem with creationist and ID arguments (which are in essence the same thing) is that they take a faith position, assume it to be true, and then look for pseudo-scientific ideas to support their positions. They do not use the scientific method. Full stop. Science has a particular way of doing things for a reason, and they are not doing it that way, so it’s not science. “Creationist Scientist” is an oxymoron.
In addition, such group as answersingenesis.com use logical fallacies, poor argument, lousy science (if any) and just all around crummy work to make their "points". I have spent time debunking articles of theirs and it was so embarrassingly easy I almost felt sorry for them. It’s like watching children trying to support the existence of faeries.
The reason that creationists think that science sets standards that they themselves fail to meet is that they fail to understand the scientific method. For example, science is not solely something that is derived from laboratory work. Far from it. Geologists and Paleontologists can spend their entire career outside of a lab and never set foot in a lab yet do GREAT science. Science is about observation and verifiability. Two things that creationism fails miserably (just for starters)
It is really quite simple to solve the dilemma and many churches have. The creation story is mythological. It is a STORY. It is not a guidebook that describes nature. That the creation event story is presented two different ways in the bible itself is one proof of this. One need only read it. The fact of the matter is that like other stories in the bible including and especially Revelation, BOTH versions of the story are allegorical. It does not matter one iota if the story is a fiction. It is a story with a POINT, and the point is NOT that science is wrong. It is the story of the Fall, or whatever else one wants to take out of it.
The flood story is found here:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
Any “theory” much greater than that is complete and utter rubbish. The geologic record is clear folks, there was no worldwide flood.
Here is something for the creationists in the room to think about; As long as you keep harping on this bandwagon and refuse to understand how science actually works, you will be made fools of by such things as Dover. It is actually counterproductive to FAITH. You will teach you children to learn a falsehood, and when they learn science, and learn how nature actually IS, their faith may fall on hard times, or be smashed because you did not understand that evolution is both a theory and a fact. The facts are well-supported, the theories are in development. The creation story is neither.
J Madden, I agree with what you wrote. I think geologists more than any other scientific occupation are acquainted with the evidence to show the problems of a literal Genesis. There is a reason one can count on one hand the number of trained geologists who support a young earth, sudden life, and a world-wide flood. And they are all religiously motivated.
There are scientists following the public controversy who have a name for creationists and their behavior. They call it "Lying for Jesus," and while I think that is accurate for some, I also think it is misunderstanding the incredible pressure that evolution puts on belief. There wouldn't be near the pushback if evolution didn't profoundly challenge something. Facts don't change most people's mind if there is strong dissonance - if that were the case we wouldn't even be having this discussion because evolution would be as accepted as heliocentrism. And so there are pressures that make evolution unattractive.
I think many creationists honestly believe that evolution cannot be true because it creates so many problems and so they are not exactly lying when they keep repeated the same disproven ideas. The scientists get frustrated because they are playing by different rules. Scientists are accountable to the evidence while those opposed - not so much. They are accountable to God in their minds and are fighting the good fight.
Dover highlighted this and showed the real damage that can come from it. A few profoundly ignorant yet highly motivated school board members brought a world of misery to a town that didn't need it. And I say profoundly ignorant, not as a snide comment but as a simple description that accurately captures the lack of information these people had about creationism, ID and evolution. In their mind, creationism was God's side and evolution was to be fought and that was all they needed to know.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, evolution and Christianity are not easily reconciled regardless of those who claim it is. There are reasons for the resistance and while I don't share the view of those who reject evolution, I am sympathetic to the problems that arise.
J Madden
A very agressive attack! With very little evidence.
How science works.
It observes an action or result.
1. It proposes a hypothesis as to causation or process.
2. It designs a test to prove of disprove the hypothesis
3. It uses statistical tools to estimate the probability that the results are comparable and can be duplicated.
Todate science has been unable to establish experimental or observational evidence to support the neo-Darwinian hypothesis. Neither have creationist been able to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Neither theory is falsifiable.
The only part of the Genesis story of Origins that can be taken on faith is: "In the beginning God."
The only part of the neo-Darwinian story of origins that can be taken on faith is: In the beginning a Big Bang.
So far every attempt at duplicating the Big Bang has lasted in nano-seconds and not the billion and billion of years of Carl Sagan's story.
So far, let's face it. Man just doesn't know. He can't even recall his own conception, let alone his birth. He/She has to be told. At least we now have DNA to establish relationships and thus verification beyond documents.
When it comes to either beginning or process, let us admit we know every little. We see patterns and relationships and we draw conclusions.
Widely variant conclusions none of which are verifiable.
So a little bit of humility would be in order on both sides.
The age old question still remains: "Vas you dere Charley?"
Tom
P.S.
Beth
Geologists dig in the earth. Christians believe in a God Who is from everlasting to everlasting. Thus, the earth, which was without form at the Creation could and most likely was
ageless. The bone buried in it may well be a lot younger.
I was a student when Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny was still in vogue. My point is both religion and science are of human origin and thus subject to error of several magnitudes.
No I don't believe the Genesis account. Certainly the Sun Moon, and Stars existed long before day three of the creation story. But I also don't believe, intelligent life began in some fetid pool by chance encounter with carbon/nitrogen/oxygen and sun light. Tom
Beth,
Thanks. I think Evolution and Christianity are easily reconciled. Lots of churches do it. Adventism on the other hand, has a real problem on it's hands and it needs to stop spreading misinformation, if not lies, in my opinion (IMO).
Tom,
Actually let me put forth the ACTUAL Scientific Method in it’s entirety so as to begin to show how creationists will play fast and loose with the topic:
1. Define the question
2. Observe to obtain information and resources
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Perform experiments and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Then you go on to make a logical fallacy (as predicted) that “To date science has been unable to establish experimental or observational evidence to support the neo-Darwinian hypothesis.” That is an absurd statement, and a hasty generalization logical fallacy to boot. I request you refrain from the use of the term “neo-Darwinian” as it is useless to this discussion, IMO. “Evolution” is generally accepted. Here is a list of logical fallacies so that you know what I mean when I say that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
Evolution is proved over and over again every day in labs and by observation. A short list of recent Transitional Fossils (aka “Missing links”) finds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142145.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090204085133.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090204135731.htm
.....and that is just this weeks news!
This fossil: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ has got to be the transitional fossil find of the decade. But of course creationists will have some excuse to deny it, of that I have no doubt.
On a side note, dendrochronology ( http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ ) shows extremely precise and reproducible ages that extend past 10,000 years, as does ice core dating and a host of other dating methods. So much for the absurd Usher’s Chronology. Dendrochronology is so accurate that scientists use it to calibrate their radiocarbon dating instruments now. There is an excellent book on the subject called “A slice through Time” that is fairly readable.
As to the Big Bang, I hate to tell you this but the Big Bang has nearly nothing to do with what we are talking about here regarding evolution. If you want to discuss evolution, I am here. I am not a physicist and neither are you, but I am a Geologist and I suspect your not that either, but I will discuss it with you so as to hopefully provide you with the facts, or at least provide the other people interested here, with facts.
I will point out again (as have others) that numerous Christian churches believe in Evolution and Jesus. They may have theories that the Big Bang was gods creation event, but that Genesis is an allegory, I don’t know, nor do I care. What I do know is that evolution is a theory AND a fact, it is scientifically proven all the time, and that I can provide you with evidence of such every day, every hour, every time for the entirety of this and any future conversation I will have with you.
Your assertion that “Widely variant conclusions none of which are verifiable” is so broad as to mean literally anything about anything. Hasty generalization.
If you were to tell me that gravity doesn’t exist I would look at your posts as absurd to the extreme, and for much the same reasons. I can walk around and SEE gravity in action, experience gravity, test gravity, even though it is not directly observable with my eyes. Evolution is as tested as that, and just as obvious in the natural world.
As the author of this thread pointed out, the church once tried to put the sun around the earth, I’m afraid you are too.
J. What are you afraid of? Vindictive is neither science nor debate. Have you ever read the Mathamatical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Theory by MIT Scientists in answer to Harvard
Biologists? You just can't get there from here.
As for Ushers chronology it was discredited long before either you or I were born. To compare evolutionary hypothesiss to gravity as testability is nonsense. No I am not a geologist but at least I don't have my head in the sand to capture your level of argumentation.
Let us agree that we agree the Genesis account is not history or science.
Let us also agree that we disagree on origins.
That settled, let us be about our Father's Business. Tom
I am merely responding to the posts you have made here so far. You made claims such as "...There are just mountains of assumptions on the evolution side that they refuse to admit and never begin to climb while demanding that we not use even a single assumption..." and "...the evolutionist establishment gets to set standards for creationists that they don't even BEGIN to reach themselves..." and so on.
I have provided you with scientific articles and refutation as to the generalizations you made to put forth your points. Now, if you want to retract your assumptions about "the evolution side" (that would be me) I will retract my assumptions about "the creationist side" (that would be you).
Meanwhile, I am glad to see we agree on Usher, although creationists would not even remotely all agree with you so that needs to be said. I am also glad to see we agree that the "Genesis account is not history or science".
What I wonder is.....what are you arguing with on the evolution side then? If you think that Genesis is allegorical, why argue with the scientific evidence at all, much less make the generalizations that you did? If Genesis is not "fact", not "history or science" then by definition the BEST source to determine how we DID get here is...science. Scientists have the answers if you are actually unconcerned about the factuality of Genesis.
Since you set aside Usher, let me present some facts for us to discuss since we seem to keep wanting to bring in other topics:
- The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
- The creatures on it are here by a process known as evolution.
However "origin" occurred is still in the lab (literally) however, RNA studies are promising, and the process of evolution clearly approaches right to the single cell going backwards in time.
If one wants to discuss whether that cell was put there by god, then I would think one needs to show why it matters, if Genesis is just a story.
J.
Even if we don't agree or even know for sure our origin or our destiny. Let us be confident that we are purposeful beings. Let us be about a useful purpose with enlightened self-interest in which we leave more than an empty place at the table. Duty, honor, and country under God. Goodnight. Tom
As the author of this thread pointed out, the church once tried to put the sun around the earth, I’m afraid you are too.
Posted by: J Madden, PG (not verified) | 09 February 2009 at 10:51
Actually J
The sun does go around the earth. Its a relative question. From the perspective of a man sitting on a hillside for 24 hours and not moving it is true. From the perspective of a spaceship motionless in space it appears different.
Why is it science afficianodos take simple observations from years ago and try and make them out to be as current scientific journals?
Also the ice cores and their interpitation and/or calibration are not resolved as yet. There are many scientists who theorize about different versions.
So accept that is all you really have a theory.
If you had more than that I guess you would prove it wouldnt you?
David,
No, I’m not a reporter in Washington, I’m a professor teaching English and Bible in Korea. Belief in the Bible and in evolution are in direct conflict. The only way to reconcile them is to mythologize Genesis. But, the text doesn’t give any justification for doing such violence to the intended meaning. Genesis says God created all life forms and set boundaries beyond which they can’t evolve. Darwinian evolution says all life forms came from much simpler life forms, cells, etc. Yes, there are some kinds of evolution that are compatible with creationism, such as micro-evolution, but not Darwinian evolution. Yes, God could use any means he wished. But, he told us the method that he used in very literal, NOT metaphorical, language. Good examples from history on how sometimes our interpretations are wrong. So, we can keep an open mind in some ways, but if Darwinian evolution were true, God being truthful would have given us a hint that it happened that way. He did not.
Tom,
There are all kinds of things in the Bible that people didn’t understand why they were necessary or important at first, but later they did. I’m sure God has some reason for have 7 clean animals and 2 unclean, at least in symbology if not in biology. But, that’s a trivial detail. Yes, I agree, we cannot convince people by starting with what we believe. We need to start with evidence that they trust.
Bryan
J Madden (and Beth),
ID/creationism has not been debunked far less than evolution has been debunked. I can provide you with many articles and some of the greatest scientists that find it extremely rational and far more scientific than evolution.
“I am a professional geologist. I was trained in creationism. I believe it no longer. I suggest you don't either.”
I know of many professional scientists trained in evolution who now believe it to be a fraud. I suggest you do the same ;). You can start by watching the Dr. Walter Veith videos listed above. He’s got a ph.d. in zoology and is chair of zoology in a SECULAR and national university. He was a former very virulent atheist/evolutionist who loved to destroy the beliefs of creationists/Christians. But, he experienced 1st hand and incontrovertible proof of supernatural forces. He went and checked the actual observable evidence and found much fraud, logical fallacies and complete guesses, NONE of which should be considered a scientific. Videos are here:
A) http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/media-Walter-Veith-testimony.html (this is a summary of his change from virulent atheist to Christian creationist. Not very deep in the science, but very interesting and solid proof of the supernatural).
B) GENESIS CONFLICT SERIES: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html (goes pretty deep scientifically on many scientific topics in the evolution-creation issue. 1st one is on dating. 2nd is on the fossil record and very brilliant. Many others are very good too.)
The main problem with evolution is it takes a completely faith position, assumes it to be true (because they have decided APRIORI to exclude anything but materialistic explanations for life) and then uses hordes of logical fallacies and untestable arguments to support its positions. It does not use the scientific method full stop. It uses speculation and calls it science.
One of the biggest logical fallacies is that evolution tries to equate itself with creation. That’s an apples and oranges logical fallacy. You yourself know that evolution deals with how species change, NOT the origin of life. Creation is an origin of life and thus must be compared with abiogenesis. How species change is the debate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro has more than trillions of cases that are testable. Macro-evolution has only the most dubious of examples that depend WHOLLY on assumptions and are NOT observable. It’s like the Ptolemaic scientists having a theory that the earth was the center of our solar system and adjusting their calculations often to make new data “prove” that theory. They found quite an impressive amount…but the theory eventually proved to be untrue. Same is happening with evolution.
Science (including the scientific method) was invented by creationists. You are very wrong to insult the people who invented the method that you claim to respect. You also use the typical atheist technique of ridicule. AIG scientists may not be infallible (no one is on either side), but they have degrees from top universities and use very good science that is TESTABLE and OBSERVABLE. I can give you MANY examples of logical fallacies and completely unscientific arguments that evolutionists have used that are way worse than AIG or almost any creationist.
“The reason that creationists think that science sets standards that they themselves fail to meet is that they fail to understand the scientific method. For example, science is not solely something that is derived from laboratory work.”
You are misrepresenting creationists VERY badly…straw manning them (a logical fallacy…by the way I teach my students about logical fallacies…so I know how to identify them pretty well :) ). These accusations are 100% false about EVERY creation scientist I know.
“Science is about observation and verifiability. Two things that creationism fails miserably (just for starters)”
1st sentence true..and something that evolution fails horribly at. 2nd sentence is a logical fallacy again since you can't prove historical events conclusively by science. There is some science that can be used to compare what we see to the event and results that should have occurred. But, that involves a lot of speculation and assumptions whether you are talking about creation, abiogenesis or macro-evolution (but not micro-evolution)
Yet again you are using the logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges. Creation is an origin of life event. Darwinian evolution is not (unless you include abiogenesis in that).
Skeptics have alleged that numerous things in the Bible are myths or untrue and all sorts of alternative theories. As time and research and discoveries have multiplied, the skeptics have been proven wrong at least 100s of thousands of times. They have one of the most ridiculous track records imaginable. I’ll stick with the Bible when it makes some claim. I don’t enjoy being proven wrong every other day J. And don’t equate evolution with science. They two could not be more opposite.
“The geologic record is clear folks, there was no worldwide flood.”
Why not check out someone who has done primary research IN THE FIELD himself (unlike your straw man accusation above) and has powerful evidence that there was. See this link, video 102-universal flood.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html
Regarding Dover, don’t you even understand that the govt. doesn’t have a level playing field? It is prejudiced against any truth that comes from religion. That is wrong, immoral and a hindrance to progress. How would you like it if the standard was that anything connected to Darwin can’t be taught in school just because Darwin proposed it. That’s gross injustice. But, that’s what’s being done to Christians. Dover was a travesty of justice…but the travesty is based on an unreasonable standard. Unfortunately, the judge is required to follow unjust laws.
“evolution is both a theory and a fact. The facts are well-supported, the theories are in development. The creation story is neither.”
Again the false comparison logical fallacy. Plus Darwinian evolution does NOT have facts to support it. It has speculative evidence that is arranged based on suppositions and assumptions to fit preconceived notions. When you prove VISIBLE/OBSERVABLE evidence of one life form producing descendants that cross let’s say the family border, then you can start calling evolution scientific. Arranging pixels into a picture is not science, that’s art. The same kind of art that the Ptolemaic scientists used. You need to demonstrate OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. I agree that the creation event was not observed. But, there is far more physical evidence and rational evidence that that occurred than there is for abiogenesis which is its counterpart (NOT Darwinian evolution whose counterpart is micro evolution).
“There is a reason one can count on one hand the number of trained geologists who support a young earth, sudden life, and a world-wide flood. And they are all religiously motivated.”
Beth, your allegation is dead wrong on the number of trained geologists who support creationism. But, the reason there are so few is because atheists control the school system, indoctrinate their students with assumptions and apriori thinking and do not allow the students to analyze evidence that is contrary to atheistic evolution. It’s not different than trying to convince a communist 50 years ago that democracy was right.
“Facts don't change most people's mind if there is strong dissonance - if that were the case we wouldn't even be having this discussion because evolution would be as accepted as heliocentrism. And so there are pressures that make evolution unattractive.”
Yes, if you didn’t use the false comparison logical fallacy, everyone would be a creationist. Compare creation to abiogenesis, not to evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with fact or heliocentrism. Get over it. Most of the misrepresentation and esp. the use of logical fallacies is on the evolutionist side. I’ve been debating this for years and could dig up literally 100s and 1000s of examples from my archives.
“The scientists get frustrated because they are playing by different rules. Scientists are accountable to the evidence while those opposed - not so much. They are accountable to God in their minds and are fighting the good fight. Dover highlighted this and showed the real damage that can come from it. A few profoundly ignorant yet highly motivated school board members brought a world of misery to a town that didn't need it. And I say profoundly ignorant, not as a snide comment but as a simple description that accurately captures the lack of information these people had about creationism, ID and evolution. In their mind, creationism was God's side and evolution was to be fought and that was all they needed to know.”
Don’t conflate scientists with evolutionists. They are not the same. Evolutionists play by VERY different rules from science. They are not required to provide observable evidence…just try to force pieces into premade jigsaw puzzles and adapt the puzzle if the piece doesn’t fit and then astoundingly claim “We are scientific because we made a pretty picture and you don’t have observable evidence (ignoring the fact that they have no observable evidence for either abiogenesis OR macro-evolution)”. You want to talk about scientists who are accountable to God? I’ll give you a couple (I have 1000s of quotes like this):
Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of rocket science, wrote of a far more logical line of thinking when he said, "...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
Read this article for MANY other scientists who are responsible to God “SCIENTISTS AND THEIR GODS” by Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, one of the top 3 most quoted chemists in the world (Great article!!) Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III,
Scientists and their Gods
Dover is based on fraudulent standards…that truth from religion is illegal to be used in school. Reverse the rules. Make all things Darwinian illegal in school…block all funding…ban all “research” just because it’s connected to Darwin…would you consider that fair???? Think more deeply Beth and Madden…not so superficially according to what you’ve been indoctrinated with.
---
From J. Madden:
“Actually let me put forth the ACTUAL Scientific Method in it’s entirety so as to begin to show how creationists will play fast and loose with the topic:
1. Define the question
2. Observe to obtain information and resources
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Perform experiments and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)”
Very good Madden. You know the scientific method well as you should. But evolution fails at both point 2 and point 4 especially, both of which demand OBSERVABLE evidence that Darwinian evolution has failed to provide for the last century. And don’t start with the transitional fossils. They don’t prove ANYTHING. That’s just art, making pretty pictures just like the Ptolemaic scientists did. You don’t have an unbroken line of descent showing change ANYWHERE. THAT would be scientific proof…a couple transitional fossils is NOT proof of evolution in the least…furthermore you would need many millions of transitional fossils to even make it rational (and that’s still not scientific). Showing similar morphology has absolutely NOTHING to do with proving descent. Does the morphology of certain cars being similar prove that they gave birth to each other? Of course not. That’s nonsense.
“Then you go on to make a logical fallacy (as predicted) that “To date science has been unable to establish experimental or observational evidence to support the neo-Darwinian hypothesis.” That is an absurd statement, and a hasty generalization logical fallacy to boot.”
J, there is speculative experimental data that fits evidence into an apriori chart and ignores anomalies and tries to make pretty pictures, I’ll agree with you on that. But, there are no fallacies in Tom’s statement and there also is no observable evidence of any type that would prove evolution to be science. The type require is an unbroken line of descent that demonstrates change beyond a major boundary such as the family boundary. Use insects which have very short lives if you wish…anything..but DIRECT OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED. Fancy charts and pretty pictures do not science make.
"This fossil: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ has got to be the transitional fossil find of the decade. But of course creationists will have some excuse to deny it, of that I have no doubt."
Yes, tiktaalik is one of the biggest fish stories of the decade, no doubt about it. First of all, similar morphology does NOT prove descent. That’s a false assumption. You should know that there are many ways to interpret data since evolutionists do it so well and are constantly changing their theories and interpreting data differently to match the latest fad. The basic problem is that until you bring an actual line of descent that is conclusively proven to be genetically linked, you’re just making pretty pictures. There are many alternate views of tiktaalik (and unfortunately, these don’t even deal with the fallacy that morphology doesn’t prove descent…which is your foundational error..but anyway):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish
MANY more I could provide…
On dating, the Bible doesn’t state the age of the earth and because son can mean descendant and father can mean ancestor it is just impossible from the Bible to give a certain age of the earth. But it doesn’t seem possible for the Bible to support dates for the origin of life on earth much beyond 10,000 years and millions of years is just completely impossible . Regarding dating based on uniformitarianism, I’ve written a small article on that here for laymen (actually my 2nd language ESL students) that a professional geologist edited—you can see a link to her credentials at the top of the file (I haven’t had time to rewrite the paper with her suggestions, but she basically approved of it and it’s pretty good):
Dating the Earth by Bryan Bissell
Dendrochronology is not precise because you can have many rings in one year. Neither is ice core dating for a similar reason (you can have many layers laid done in one season or year and very few in the next). There are numerous other assumptions and NUMEROUS anomalies which are WELL documented in MANY places.
The Big Bang if true, is one of the best verifications anywhere of the “creation of the universe”. This is what persuaded Einstein to be a believer in a supernatural power rather than an atheist. A big bang without a creator guiding it and setting all the variables in precise ways, is just rational suicide. Then you have questions such as, who created the physical material and many natural laws required to make the Big Bang create a universe that supports life.
“What I do know is that evolution is a theory AND a fact, it is scientifically proven all the time, and that I can provide you with evidence of such every day, every hour, every time for the entirety of this and any future conversation I will have with you.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you can do this. I’ve challenged evolutionists for decades to do this and all have failed. They are skilled at ridicule and at making pretty pictures (ie. fitting transitional fossils into models designed on apriori thinking). But, providing observable evidence is something they are completely unskilled at providing. I’ve read some of the best evolutionists in the world…and debated many professional evolutionist scientists. They assume and make innumerable speculations and then act like that is science. It is NOT. Science requires OBSERVEABLE evidence that evolution is completely unable so far to provide.
As Tom said, your comparison of evolution to gravity is just absurd and a false comparison to boot. Gravity we can observe and test. Evolution we can’t…unless you’ve recently produced an unbroken line of insects where a bee turned into a butterfly or something like that.
“You made claims such as "...There are just mountains of assumptions on the evolution side that they refuse to admit and never begin to climb while demanding that we not use even a single assumption..." and "...the evolutionist establishment gets to set standards for creationists that they don't even BEGIN to reach themselves..." and so on.”
Yes, Madden, I DID make those claims and they are solid claims that I can prove ad infinitum and just did a bit. I’ve read for decades the arguments of evolutionists and I can give you all kinds of examples of the above with time. I’m quite busy thought at present and am about to become much busier working at 4 different places to pay off debt…so I don’t know if I’ll have time to dig through and compile all the evidence I have or even respond a lot…but will do what I can especially on weekends. The above is just a drop in the ocean of material I have to share.
“I have provided you with scientific articles and refutation as to the generalizations you made to put forth your points.”
No sir, you haven’t provided any refutations of my claims and neither are your articles scientific/observable support for evolution. I haven’t had time to read the articles you linked, but I’ve read MANY like them before (and maybe even the same ones) and they are based on faith assumptions that you don’t have a right to assume if you want evolution to be considered scientific. You are just lecturing us on the party line and making pretty pictures and false logic standards and comparisons as they do. With all due respect, you are NOT providing any observable evidence that is required in order for evolution to be considered scientific.
Genesis IS historical AND scientific BOTH. I disagree with Tom on that and you. Creation is not an observable event though of course. Neither is abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution. Creation is a historical event with MUCH rational evidence to support it, but it still requires faith, but FAR less faith than abiogenesis. The Genesis theory that life only adapts within certain limits has been documented with an infinite of evidence. The evidence for Darwinian evolution is like a drop of water compared to an ocean of evidence for the creation side (and remember..until a couple centuries ago, scientists believed in spontaneous generation and things like that and had no idea that adaptation had certain limits. That’s a prediction by the Bible and endless confirmation with “modern science” of the last couple centuries.
“Let me present some facts for us to discuss since we seem to keep wanting to bring in other topics:
- The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
- The creatures on it are here by a process known as evolution."
These are NOT facts at ALL Madden. Do you know how much the “facts” regarding the age of the earth (as well as many other things) has changed over the last few decades. Facts aren’t supposed to change like that. And you don’t have ANY observable evidence that animals can observe beyond the family boundary. You can’t rationally call anything a fact or scientific when you don’t have even one unbroken line of descent demonstrating that one life form can evolve into another family.
Basically, evolution is one of the biggest faith based theories in existence. Making pretty pictures and nice and clean charts with “evidence” that was forced and adapted and based on numerous assumptions and double standards and false comparisons, is NOT science. That’s dogma. I suggest you read some books such as Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” for some background on how the views of the establishment of one generation are frequently proven false by the next generation or even the same generation and how prejudice and bias are very strong in science and how major amounts of anomalies are excluded from study in order to keep faith in the party line.
You can see a small summary of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
When you read that and begin restricting science to OBSERVABLE evidence as you defined it and as it should be, you will begin to realize as Dr. Veith did and many other scientists have that evolution is a faith dogma that is unsupportable by the observable evidence and is many orders of magnitude more faith based than Bible science and even creation science.
God bless,
Bryan
P.S. for those who want more technical material my article on dating above, there is MUCH in Dr. Veith’s videos at:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html (especially video #1, video 3 is very good on fossils, etc. All are good…even these though are still at an intermediate level of science since they are public lectures…but he does try to go fairly deeply into some science…but he could go much deeper with professional scientists).
This link also has many good articles on the dating problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
Another good one by Dr. Brown (ph.D. from MIT) on radiocarbon dating.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ22.html#wp1303390
Bryan
NOVA is rebroadcasting the special on Dover tomorrow night.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
I highly recommend the show to anyone interested in this topic. You can watch it on the pbs website as well at any time.
I've seen much of it already Beth. It doesn't address the irrational and grossly unfair standard that the judge was required to follow. When you agree that a rule excluding Darwin from all of academia is correct, I'll agree that the rule excluding God from all academia is correct:). Truth/facts should not be banned or prevented from investigation no matter where it's found, whether in Darwinism, atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism. When establishments do that, it's a very probably sign that they've become a dogma and are unable to support their beliefs with evidence since they have to turn to banning the other side from the discussion instead of meeting the arguments with facts.
Bryan
David,
Thank you for the brief summary of the content of the books written by these three authors dealing with the Intelligent Design theory. I was hoping that you would continue contributing to the Spectrum Blog, and I am glad you did. Coming from somebody who understands both the Adventist and Catholic thinking is very helpful for those interested in this highly controversial topic.
I agree with you that “intelligent design may not yet be ready for introduction into public school curricula;” nevertheless, I concur with both Bryan and Karpistian that fairness requires that both evolution and Intelligent Design be included in our school program; or else the teaching of evolution should be excluded from our schools. Any deviation from such a policy should be treated as unfair indoctrination.
I believe that U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III did misinterpret the U.S. Constitution in his opinion on the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The Establishment Clause was not designed to keep God out of public life. Were it intended for said purpose, we wouldn’t have any public display of the Ten Commandments nor the phrase “In God we trust” imprinted on our money.
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to avoid the endorsement of a particular brand of religion by the state. The framers of our Constitution had no intention of keeping God out of our government, our schools, and our public life.
When the presiding judge in the Dover case ruled that teachers should not be allowed to “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” he was in fact playing favorites, because the theory of evolution is not based on science, but rather metaphysics. True scientific foundation rests on experimentation, replication, and verification. No theory of origin is testable and there is no way of disproving it.
This means that, for the sake of fairness, if evolution is allowed to be taught in school, the alternative Intelligent Design theory should be allowed to compete as well. The government has no right to indoctrinate our children on a specific alternative explanation for origins.
The judge made another mistake in his ruling: The ID theory should not be confused with religion, which you acknowledged. It simply states that observation, common sense and logic should lead us to conclude that if we see design in nature, we must admit that there must have been a designer, or else we need to entertain the alternative explanation that nature is able to produce intricate design in the absence of purposeful intelligent activity.
Admitting the existence of a designer says nothing about the identity of a designer, nor does it tells us anything about the character of such designer. This is the role of religion and this is where religion and science part their ways.
When an explorer finds drawings and paintings, or hieroglyphics in an old previously unexplored cave, he immediately concludes that those writings and drawings are not the product of nature but the result of intelligent activity. When we discover pyramid structures in the jungles of Peru, Mexico, or Egypt, we have no problem crediting their origin to intelligent activity of human beings.
Likewise, when we explore the universe we observe fine tuning in it without which life would be impossible. Positing the existence of billions of universes does not solve the problem of origin. Fine tuning requires a fine tuner and intricate design demands the intelligent intervention of a designer.
I am looking forward to the time when science and religion will join hands in the search for a reasonable explanation for the origin of life and a time when our young people will not be deprived of the chance to explore all alternative theories related to this incredible enigma.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
RT,
On 06 February 2009 at 4:50 you stated the following: “I'm skeptical about the day of science and religon being at peace in Adventism so long as religion fails to move.” You are right. Religion has been acting in a dogmatic manner. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that science is blameless in this respect?
The existence of the universe and life on it requires an explanation. It is either the result of natural selection and survival of the fittest, or else the result of intelligent design. Logic demands that we do not exclude the possibility that the universe was fine tuned for life.
Excluding this alternative explanation is dogmatism and evidence of an arbitrary attitude. The intricate design we find in nature can be attributed to either extreme luck or else to intelligent design. If someone were to win a lottery a hundred times in a row, we would conclude that the program has been rigged.
In the case of life being the result of sheer luck would be equivalent to winning the lottery not one hundred times in a row, but rather billions of times. Logic demands that we do entertain the potential activity of a designer or fine tuner; which means to me that both religion and science have to become less dogmatic and join hands in the search for truth.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Bryan,
It is estimated that 97% of biologists are evolutionists. Geologists are probably higher. You being able to produce one person or even ten that disagrees with nearly the entire scientific establishment hardly qualifies as a quorum, or even a viable source of information. The vast numbers of scientists in the world that are evolutionists shows so-called "creationist scientists" for what they are, marginalized with a false agenda. Like people that deny the man landings and think that bigfoot lives.
Evolution taking a "faith position" is also a logical fallacy. Since you did not bother to show why it is a faith position and merely asserted it (repeatedly), I will not dignify it further.
You go on to ask for direct evidence, which is provided to you in Tiktaalik amongst all the other transitional fossils that you creationists love to try to wave away with a hand (archeopteryx, horses, whales, etc. etc.) , despite all the research that 100s of thousands of scientists have prepared and slaved over to demonstrate their theory being proved and all creationists have to say is such absurd soundbites as "similar morphology does NOT prove descent". You know, I can look at a horse and a zebra and KNOW that the zebra is related to a fish. Oh WAIT, I'm sorry, one uses morphology to show that a zebra is related to a horse. Apparently your mileage must vary.
Look at that, I made a simple scientific observation with no genetic testing whatsoever. Morphology is a clear scientific observation, and a rather good one as my horse-zebra analogy shows to anyone that is not blinded by mythological subjectivity. And yet, genetics supports evolution TOO, go figure.
Since you clearly did not know that dendrochronology can be cross referenced from KNOWN dated events in human history (lumber in buildings, volcanic events, etc) and the theory is therefore literally physically verifiable during human history, I will assume that you were merely uninformed and make no further comment. Kinda shows the veracity of your sources though, doesn't it? Likewise with other measurement methods such as ice cores.
That you have read the work of evolutionists for decades, or Tom arguing with them for that matter, does not make you qualified to judge them or their work. Having proof does, and so far that is severely lacking in the creationist camp. To put it mildly. It's pretty hard to publish when you have almost no scientists working on your theories. Why would they? The theories were abandoned and for obvious reasons. You are absolutely right that the first evolutionists were creationists (previously). Within 20 years of the publication of Origin of Species almost NO scientists were creationists. I wonder why THAT was? Actually I don't. That was Darwin's genius, Darwin's theory fit BETTER than the creationists one. Scientists use Occam's Razor and evidence to determine the better of two theories. Creationism uses obfuscation, illogic, and mythology to justify its beliefs. While science may not be perfect and may have to self-adjust as new theories are found, creationism merely keeps rehashing the same old fallacious ideas.
The scientific method has objective outside verification and testing built into the process, which is why it is NOT faith. Faith is not testable for error. Scientific findings ARE.
This "Observable evidence" red herring logical fallacy you keep dragging across the trail is also absurd. Of COURSE evolution has observable evidence, I already provided just a weeks worth of scientific news. That you do no understand or refuse to accept it, does not make it less true. Your sources are nonscientific religious/faith-based wishful thinking sites that also use poor rationale. Mine is scientific specialty news sites. Funny that.
I have already linked to observable evidence and demonstrated why Tiktaalik, archeopteryx, and other transitional fossils are obviously related to their transitional species. In addition, humans, whales, and other species contain vestigial organs that we no longer need as we evolved to not need them. Other transitional observations may include wing like appendages that were not used as wings (Ostriches), or leg like appendages that were used as flippers or not used at all in the case of whales. Bacteria evolve to counteract antibiotics, and they evolve quickly. On and ON.
It is interesting that Tom has admitted that Genesis is a not historical or scientific and you don't, and yet your arguments are very similar, not to mention the style of "argument". Very interesting. Tom must have learned from talking to evolutionists that the Genesis account has no legs.
Tom,
On 06 February 2009 at 9:01 you stated: “The last thing a creationist should do or be is dogmatic.” You are right 100 percent. How come, though, you didn’t say anything about the need for scientist to be less dogmatic? The existence of a fine tuned universe demands a logical explanation, but science refuses to admit even the possibility that such fine tuning for life might have been the result of a fine tuner.
Assuming that life on earth was the result of natural causes is equivalent to getting a one out of billions throws of the dice. Life exists within an extremely narrow spectrum. When scientists look for signs of intelligent life in space, they listen for signals within narrow limits showing patterns which do not occur without the intervention of intelligence. Yet the same scientists, when dealing with the origin of life, they arbitrarily eliminate the possibility of any intelligent intervention. This attitude reveals a closed mind to the rules of common sense and logic.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Bryan,
I read your comments dated 06 February 2009 at 2:20 with great interest, and I agree with you that scientists have been setting rules which they are not ready to follow. They demand that those who believe that our fine tuned universe is the result of the intelligent activity of a fine tuner provide a way of verifying the existence of such fine tuner; nevertheless, they feel no obligation to provide any evidence that life could have been the result of spontaneous generation.
Scientists can’t even replicate the origin of life from non life in the laboratory in spite of all the accumulated and combined intelligent activity of thousands of scientist who believe in this nonsense; and if they were to succeed in creating life from inert non-living matter, this would merely prove that life is the result of intelligent activity.
Karpistian,
Thanks for your comments dated on 06 February 2009 at 5:52. I heartily agree with you that for the sake of fairness, schools should be allowed to teach Intelligent Design along with evolution or else teach neither theory of origin. There is no doubt that “If only one theory is taught, that is not education; it is indoctrination” plain and simple.
The theory of Intelligent Design is based on solid logic and it subject to verification. For example, every time an explorer discovers the footprints of animals or human beings on clay or sandy soil, he can verify whether such evidence could have been produced by the random forces of nature.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic,
The reason that anyone has earned a right to a dogmatic view is that they have actual validated evidence on their side of a view. Scientists actually have peer reviewed evidence. Creationists have a piece of 5th Century fictional literature.
The beauty of science is that it has it built into the system to search for proof/data supporting the veracity of an assertion. Science actually embraces correction from experts that do the research.
Creationism has no such corrections built in, and in fact embraces NOT allowing the evidence get in the way of a good piece of fiction. It is why Intelligent Design/Creationism lost in court.
Michael Behe, the best supporter of the "theory" stated under oath: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". How can creationism be taken seriously if its best theories are so pathetic that they are not even submitted for peer review?
The side issue and reason that we do not teach Intelligent Design in court is that we have it written into our laws to keep church and state separate, something that Adventism has embraced wholeheartedly until as of late. Teaching ID is a violation of that Church/State divide and it has been ruled as such. If you want to teach ID, teach at an Adventists school.
J.
Your assertions are way ahead of your science. What science has accomplished in a highly structured lab: they then conclude could have taken place over time by trial and error or chance.
Science has created an amino acid, even a simple protein. It has only deconstructed a DNA molecule. It hasn't reproduced a species specific DNA molecule.
What science has done is independantly produced experienmentation consistent with their over arching hypothesis. They have not successfully linked any parts into an identifiable whole.
Then they make the giant leap--that water, nitrogen, carbon, and assorted junk with the assistance of sun and time has done what they could not do in a highly organized fully equiped lab.
Earlier, I referenced MIT's response to Harvard Biologists.
They concluded given the state of Harvard's hypothesis including their extended time-frame--there was not enough proposed time to produce a human eye let alone a human being.
While I don't accept the Genesis story as history. I believe, it represents a human perspective of what God accomplished by fiat. I believe, for example, that on the third day the sun, moon, and stars appeared as viewed from earth--previously obscured by clouds of water vapor etc.
I believe that the command to reproduce after their kind was a broad reaching command that included the type of adaptation that Drawin saw--but finches remained finches with adaptive variations. I believe that the word kind is not congruent with species.
I believe that Homo Sapien is the closest model to the original man. That other humanoids are degenerate forms--in keeping with the principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamtics. Entropy is the big hobgoblin of evolutionists. Thus, they become sun worshippers. Creationists are Son worshippers. Please read Rev.4:11 and Rev. 5:9 The One who made us also redeemed us.
I am willing to wait for Him to tell me the rest of the story.
I believe that man is fearfully and wonderfully made and has
by choice been disobedience to the heavenly intent. Man has paid a heavy price and the world with him for that disobedience. God, in Christ has redeemed what man lost.
In so doing, He also proposes to remake the earth into a whole
once again and not only that but to establish His headquarters on earth or at least a command center known by
Revelation as the New Jerusalem.
I accept the propostional truths of Scripture. I don't believe those writing reveal the entire picture or history.
It is a human perspective of divine action and intent.
This week is Darwin's birth week. He rejected the dogma of his day and rightly so, but in so doing created a dogma of his own--that set science free--We have benefited from that science--but those benefits do not and can not validate origins.
Creationists are the most avid believers in adaptation within the bounds set by God.
J. You have the right to your opinions, but you do yourselve and your cause no good by the hostility with which you attempt to express it. Creationists found that to be true in their early challenges to evolutionists. The most famous encounter being between Huxley and Witherspoon. And of course the Scopes trial.
The issue is not subject to science or debate. What ever was the first cuase it is beyond man's limited abilities to "prove".
There is no need for denigrating dialogue. Peace. Tom
Peer review is usually a crock.
I've sat on committees funding research and grants for scientific projects and research.
Does anyone believe someone requesting hundreds of thousands of dollars will have a hard time finding corroborating scientists to support his theories?
And the scientists who disagree want to disprove other scientists theories to be the top dog, as much as they want to prove their own theories.
Tom,
You say you accept the propositional truth of scripture (whatever that means) yet you admit that Genesis is not a literal historical description of events. Cognitive dissonance?
In essence you have already admitted what is the truth, that the book of Genesis is not literal, it is a piece of fiction. And rightly so. Now you're only quibbling over the details. You seem to understand that natural selection etc. occurs, yet you want to stop it at the origin or some arbitrary point in between then and now. Doesn't seem like a very well positioned argument to me, but....okay. You're entitled to your opinion, but an opinion is all that it is. It is not a rational, testable, endeavor governed by reason, such as science. I certainly understand having strong opinions.
You cannot reconcile the Genesis narrative as literal, and yet you don't want to admit that science is right either. Well, either the narrative is accurate, or we have to look to somewhere else for the actual story. The only place left to look for verifiable claims of how we got here is.... science.
You are welcome to join our ranks as scientists and put your theories up to be tested and peer reviewed but once you admit the story is not literal, science has the high ground. Sure it is changing, it is still working in the lab, it is still working in the field, it is still being tested but the Genesis story is NOT a detailed description and is therefore a nice story with lots of animals and pretty scenes.
Bryan,
It is estimated that 97% of biologists are evolutionists. Geologists are probably higher. You being able to produce one person or even ten that disagrees with nearly the entire scientific establishment hardly qualifies as a quorum, or even a viable source of information. The vast numbers of scientists in the world that are evolutionists shows so-called "creationist scientists" for what they are, marginalized with a false agenda. Like people that deny the man landings and think that bigfoot lives.
--
I’m VERY busy teaching classes and with other projects, so rushing off these letters without much editing and without tons more evidence and proof that I have in different places. But, will do my best with limited time.
Since you like logical fallacies so much, you should recognize them in your own writings. This one is an “appeal to the majority” logical fallacy. But, just let me control the curriculum, hire all teachers in America, allow me to influence Hollywood to mock evolution constantly and make sure most media are biased against evolution and in a couple decades or so, I can easily reverse the number to ~3% if that believing in evolution. 99% of Russians believed in communism at one time. I suppose it was also “truth”. 99% of scientists believed in creation at one time. I suppose that means it was true at one time. In not too long, much of traditional Darwinism will be obsolete. Another “truth” will take control (actually several have already made significant inroads…such as punctuated equilibrium.
“Evolution taking a "faith position" is also a logical fallacy. Since you did not bother to show why it is a faith position and merely asserted it (repeatedly), I will not dignify it further.”
Sorry, but I did not use a logical fallacy there. You could not even name it. Since evolution has never observed macro-evolution. It has never observed abiogenesis (which Darwin theorized as part of evolution). It has never observed MANY of its claims. So, yes, it’s most DEFINITELY a religion based mostly on faith. And I DID state those things several times.
“You go on to ask for direct evidence, which is provided to you in Tiktaalik amongst all the other transitional fossils that you creationists love to try to wave away with a hand (archeopteryx, horses, whales, etc. etc.) , despite all the research that 100s of thousands of scientists have prepared and slaved over to demonstrate their theory being proved and all creationists have to say is such absurd soundbites as "similar morphology does NOT prove descent". You know, I can look at a horse and a zebra and KNOW that the zebra is related to a fish. Oh WAIT, I'm sorry, one uses morphology to show that a zebra is related to a horse. Apparently your mileage must vary. “
No, tiktaalik is NOT evidence. But, even if you believe that morphology proves descent (which even some non-believing scientists point out is an assumption and not a proven fact), tiktaalik can fit just as easily with a common designer as it can common descent. Just because some related animals show similar morphology does NOT IN THE LEAST prove that all animals with similar morphology are related. This is pretty basic elementary level logic. Some structures, such as the eyes of a human and the eyes of an octopus are very similar. I suppose we are now related to octopuses in your opinion :). Many creatures that evolution believes are not related have similar morphology/homology and I can dig up MANY more examples from science books I have somewhere if needed and if I have time. Even if I were to accept homology as proof…it could just as easily be proof of a common designer and no need for the theory of common descent whatsoever. It all depends on the assumptions you start with and your faith (which evolution has more of than Christians do). Here’s another example from language. These 2 sentences below are 97% “morphologically” the same. Yes, they are almost exact opposites.
1.There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
2.There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
Neither morphology nor DNA similarity are anywhere close to conclusive proofs of common descent. See these links for more on why morphology/DNA similarity aren’t proofs of descent:
http://creationwiki.org/Homology and http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
“Look at that, I made a simple scientific observation with no genetic testing whatsoever. Morphology is a clear scientific observation, and a rather good one as my horse-zebra analogy shows to anyone that is not blinded by mythological subjectivity. And yet, genetics supports evolution TOO, go figure.”
You KNOW that this is not an observation of what evolution has claimed. You have observed that different animals have similar shapes. I can observe a cloud having a similar shape as a flower or that sharks have the ability to smell and follow blood like piranha. I suppose they are now closely related. What you are SUPPOSED to observe and what science DEMANDS that you observe in order for evolution to be considered scientific is one life form evolving much farther than micro-evolution/creation theory which has been observed proven in trillions of cases. You can’t use micro-evolution to support your theory. It doesn’t prove evolution at ALL. It proves creation theory and was discovered by a creationist. You need to observe evolution beyond the family boundary. THEN we can talk about evolution being scientific.
“Since you clearly did not know that dendrochronology can be cross referenced from KNOWN dated events in human history (lumber in buildings, volcanic events, etc) and the theory is therefore literally physically verifiable during human history, I will assume that you were merely uninformed and make no further comment. Kinda shows the veracity of your sources though, doesn't it? Likewise with other measurement methods such as ice cores.”
Yes, I DO know that dendrochronology can be cross referenced with known human history but in my rush wasn’t as clear as I should have been. Thanks for the correction. THIS fact makes it FAR more credible than most if not all of the radiometric dating methods because we have NOTHING that we KNOW is 5 million years old to test them against. The farther back in time you go, the more and more assumptions you must make (partly because historical chronology such as that of Egypt has gone through vast changes in it’s stated ages and we are not as certain of things far back in time). That includes dendrochronology. We have evidence for example from many places (one example that I have was cited in National Geographic) that the atmosphere was VASTLY different in the past. This would play havoc with all sorts of calculations in dating.
“That you have read the work of evolutionists for decades, or Tom arguing with them for that matter, does not make you qualified to judge them or their work. Having proof does, and so far that is severely lacking in the creationist camp. To put it mildly.”
Oh here it comes…the elitist ridicule. ROFL. It always comes sooner or later with evolutionists (and this is not your first instance). News flash Madden, I’m a professor actually and I’ve probably read more than most ph.d. scientists on BOTH SIDES of the creation/evolution issue (but I’m sure there are a number who have read more). I’ve read materials, books, videos by Dawkins, Darwin himself, Stephen Jay Gould and NUMEROUS others. I’m quite from your constant straw man thinking about creationists that your “creationist” experience was probably limited to hearing about it in Sunday school or Sabbath school and little if anything more in depth than that. Fact is Madden, if someone has spent many years reading in a field, it’s very possible for them to know more than Ph.ds. in that field. This is why bicycle mechanics were the ones to invent flying (Wright brothers). Sometimes even without reading, amateurs come up with brilliant ideas. A radio technician recently has been developing the Kanzius device which is currently one of the best hopes for curing cancer (VERY interesting story. Google it and read about it). I can give NUMEROUS other examples. Elitism is not going to fly with me Madden. People who have degrees deserve to be listened to for sure. So do people who have read a lot in that field (which is not that different, esp. if they have done quite a bit of writing as I have). But, that doesn’t guarantee that EITHER is right.
Madden, the more you use ridicule, the more immature you sound and the more you demean your arguments and prove that you are not even CLOSE to being an objective scientist which is what scientists are supposed to at least try to be. You aren’t even making an attempt to be objective. I’ve heard decades of this kind of childish ridicule. It’s like water off a duck’s back to me. It is not going to change the fact that you have NO OBSERVABLE evidence for macro-evolution. I’m trying hard not to use ridicule towards you (I have MUCH experience with atheists and know VERY well how to do it…but I know that it doesn’t usually help ANYONE to change, so I'm trying HARD to hold my tongue :). It doesn't take ANY skill to ridicule. Children demonstrate that all the time. It DOES take skill to provide evidence and logic and esp. to avoid using logical fallacies.).
I am pretty sure that you are a knowledgeable scientist in geology and I’ll respect your credentials and listen to see if you have new types of evidence that I haven’t seen before (unlikely, but possible). I actually have a lot of respect for Darwin and other evolutionists. And some evolutionists have done very valuable scientific work. But, having a ph.d. doesn’t mean you are right anymore than my reading a lot means I am right. Evidence is required for BOTH sides.
I have trillions of cases of confirmed observable evidence for micro-evolution. You have none. I have trillions of cases of evidence where complex life ONLY comes from other complex life. You don’t even have ONE case where life can come from non-life (Creation/abiogenesis are the things that should be compared..yet you continually try to make false comparisons between creation and evolution which are not even answering the same questions.)
“It's pretty hard to publish when you have almost no scientists working on your theories. Why would they? “
This is completely untrue. Many creationists are working on many creation science theories. A whole new creation science field has just opened actually…called baraminology I believe.
“The theories were abandoned and for obvious reasons. You are absolutely right that the first evolutionists were creationists (previously).”
The theories were NOT abandoned. There was a coup detat not that much different from the Bolshevik revolution who started communism. A few evolutionist gained control of the establishment and as soon as they could banned all creation science from the classroom. Vladimir Lenin said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted" Hitler said something similar. It’s not hard to change what most people believe if you control the establishment. It’s harder, but far from impossible to do the same thing with scientists, since you can only become a scientist if you pass all the tests and read all the books that the establishment forces you to read. You just don’t have time to do much questioning or checking the foundational evidence or question assumptions or even realizing that assumptions exist since you’re so busy just trying to be recognized and reach this elite level of society.
“Within 20 years of the publication of Origin of Species almost NO scientists were creationists. I wonder why THAT was? Actually I don't. That was Darwin's genius, Darwin's theory fit BETTER than the creationists one.”
This is not true and I can prove it ad infinitum. Most people know that Darwin’s ideas were NOT accepted because they had better scientific reasons, but rather because of the social and historical context they were in where the church was abusing people and basically robbing people, it had even been responsible for increasing crime. The French Revolution had recently happened. People were looking for reasons not to believe. But, evidence they did not have. Darwin hoped that the next century would find the evidence to prove his theory. It has not.
“Scientists use Occam's Razor and evidence to determine the better of two theories.”
Ah…good old Occam’s Razor. Another assumption that has many examples where it’s not true. But, OK. I’ll assume one thing. There’s a creator. Easy. Done. And there is MUCH evidence that lines up with this assumption. You have to assume 1000s and millions of things just to get from an empty universe to one with a living cell and millions more after that. Which one is the easiest answer? Do I need to tell you? And please don’t even start with the nonsense that creationists only duty is to say “God did it”. NUMEROUS scientists believed that God did it. But, creation science is focused on finding out HOW God did it. This why MOST of the branches of science and the scientific method itself were founded and pioneered by creationists.
“Creationism uses obfuscation, illogic, and mythology to justify its beliefs.”
Absolute lunacy, deceit and irrationality. You have been well indoctrinated and probably by atheists or at the least by virulent and dishonest evolutionists. Dr. Werner Von Braun, father of rocket science, 1st director of NASA and MANY thousands of other scientists including MANY nobel prize winners and many other elite creationists like them cannot EVER be convicted of such false allegations. They have contributed enormously to science and you do violence to science to use such false language about these great men and women who you yourself depend on.
“While science may not be perfect and may have to self-adjust as new theories are found, creationism merely keeps rehashing the same old fallacious ideas.”
Also completely false. EVOLUTION which is NOT science keeps changing and that means it has been teaching falsehoods in the past every time it changes. Creationists also change theories contrary to your false allegations. The Bible doesn’t tell us all things about science. There are several flood theories that all have some very good evidence for them.
“The scientific method has objective outside verification and testing built into the process, which is why it is NOT faith. Faith is not testable for error. Scientific findings ARE.”
When you get observable and testable and VERIFIABLE evidence proving macro-evolution, you will maybe start digging yourself out of the pit of logical fallacies that you are covering yourself with. The above sentence is true about the scientific method. But evolution completely fails this scientific test. Are you ever going to try to bring me actual observable evidence of the major claims of evolution such as macro-evolution? So far you haven’t even brought one. Evolution is nothing but faith in materialism. Actually, theological theories ARE testable for error in a variety of ways…some of them even by science. This is another common false allegation that shows you are very uninformed about what you are attacking. There are many Biblical predictions in scientific and historical areas that science and history has confirmed. And theology can also be tested by personal experiences, prophecy, miracles and other ways.
“This "Observable evidence" red herring logical fallacy you keep dragging across the trail is also absurd.”
Sorry, it’s not a red herring fallacy. Hello. It’s SCIENCE and part of the scientific method that even YOU wrote down. Read it again. Step # 2 (and you should have put it in step #4 since it’s part of that one too) that YOU wrote, state that you need observable evidence of a theories claims. No observable evidence, no conclusive science and lots of faith.
“Of COURSE evolution has observable evidence, I already provided just a weeks worth of scientific news. That you do no understand or refuse to accept it, does not make it less true.”
No you haven’t provided any evidence of evolution. You’ve provided evidence that evolutionists are skilled at making pretty pictures and assuming that the pretty pictures prove their theories. That’s not at all science. It’s art. You haven’t provided any observable evidence of the main claims of the evolution theory. NONE.
“Your sources are nonscientific religious/faith-based wishful thinking sites that also use poor rationale. Mine is scientific specialty news sites. Funny that.”
More absolute falsehood. Dr. Veith is chair of zoology with a ph.d. in zoology and MANY published articles. Dr. Brown has a Ph.D. from MIT. Then there is AIG, nwcreation (below). All are specializing in science areas. Your sites are sites biased towards the evolution religion every bit as much as mine are biased towards creation science.
“I have already linked to observable evidence and demonstrated why Tiktaalik, archeopteryx, and other transitional fossils are obviously related to their transitional species. In addition, humans, whales, and other species contain vestigial organs that we no longer need as we evolved to not need them. Other transitional observations may include wing like appendages that were not used as wings (Ostriches), or leg like appendages that were used as flippers or not used at all in the case of whales. Bacteria evolve to counteract antibiotics, and they evolve quickly. On and ON.”
Transitional fossils are NOT obviously related any more than humans or octopuses are related or different models of cars gave birth to each other. You did NOT OBSERVE them transitioning. You only have assumptions and guesses and pretty pictures which I’m sorry to tell you do NOT qualify as science. Do you know how many vestigial organs there used to be? Over 180. Most have now disappeared from the list as scientists gain knowledge. Those that are left just prove that scientists are still ignorant about their function. Bacteria evolution has NEVER been observed to cross the family barrier. NEVER. This just reaffirms the theory of micro-evolution/creation.
I’ve talked with some of the best atheists on the planet…including the “Rational Response Squad”. I don’t know Tom very well, but I doubt he’s spent as much time as I have debating atheists and evolutionists. Just as importantly, I had a professor from Princeton who required me to read Darwin, Karl Marx, Freud and other similar thinkers in a theology class and “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and books by Stephen Jay Gould in a science class in an SDA university. Most Christians have not been exposed to the arguments of the critics of Christianity or any of the very solid defenses against these arguments and esp. not the logical fallacies that they are based on. Even I am not even close to an expert since I have been involved in a LOT of other projects such as starting 2 schools and for the last couple years have been deep in debt due to dishonest business partners and other family issues. But, I do know more than most Christians about the false assumptions and logical fallacies of evolution and atheism and how atheism esp. boils down to an appeal to ignorance since my REALLY STUBBORN and SMART roommate became an atheist and I had 2 years of debates covering ~1500 e-mails with him on this plus others. He’s now a Christian again and doesn’t believe evolution is observable. MUCH like Karl Popper came to believe that evolution isn’t observable.
I’ll tell you this though. There is a possibility that I am interpreting Genesis in the wrong way and that evolution is right. Since a dedication to the truth and facts requires you to be open minded ALL the time, I will always be open to new OBSERVABLE evidence…even by people like you who try to use immature ridicule tactics that just make me laugh. I’m sure you have some knowledge in areas that is greater than mine…and I’m very fine with learning from you in those areas…for example in geology. But, I have done QUITE enough reading so that I know some things that you don’t about false assumptions and logical fallacies that are the foundation of evolution. You just MIGHT be able to learn a few things from me :) and thus both of us could benefit. Ridicule though is not going to be of any benefit to either side.
Again, I do believe you are an intelligent person with a good mind. The problem is that you and most evolutionists spent decades studying evolution and the supposed evidence for it. Most evolutionists including you haven’t studied hardly anything of any depth on the creation science side and it’s very obvious that you haven’t since you are saying such grossly false things about it so often.
It is ABSOLUTELY impossible for you and any evolutionist to make an informed decision between the two since you are so completely uninformed about what creation science is trying to do and the mountains of evidence that it has and esp. Bible science has to support its case (there are similar things true about Christians who have never studied evolution). Evolution is more of a dogma than creation because you can’t escape the theory of evolution and elite scientists talking about it and its proofs in our society…but many millions have never heard anything about creation science except ridicule.
If you intend to be a genuine scientist, then ridicule should not be part of the dialogue (but feel free to point out as many logical fallacies as you can find and other errors in my argument. I will thank you for finding any if you actually do…and you did correct me on dendrochronology. Thank you. I already knew that actually…but in my rush, didn’t say things as clearly as I should have…so thanks for the correction). Ridicule just wastes time and demeans your argument and frankly makes people far more unlikely to change their opinions. I have the temptation to engage in it MANY times since I’ve experienced it SOOO much…at times, I fail and sin and do it since I’ve experienced decades of it. Frankly, it’s kind of humorous to me and I feel like saying ROFL every time I see it. It’s quite hilarious to see people attempt to use ridicule instead of actual science to persuade people and then act as if they’re being scientific. Ridicule proves nothing and just makes me laugh. So, don’t waste your time with it or mine.
I suggest you watch some of Dr. Walter Veith’s videos. They are deeper than most free creation science videos on the web since most of those videos are for laymen. Another pretty good site is www.nwcreation.net LOTS of videos and powerpoints that are quite in depth there by solid creation scientists in the education, media section.
Again, I’m going to assume that you’re a skilled geologist and that I can learn things from you. But you just haven’t even begun to challenge or investigate the assumptions that make up MUCH of the foundation of the theory of evolution. You REALLY should do that if you’re genuinely interested in truth.
Best wishes,
Bryan
(to Nic, Michael, Tom, Madden, etc.)
“I read your comments dated 06 February 2009 at 2:20 with great interest, and I agree with you that scientists have been setting rules which they are not ready to follow.” Nic
Nic,
Yes, and I’m only grazing the surface at present. I’ve got 1000s of examples on my computer in debate archives. I just don’t have time to go and dig the all up and arrange them.
“Scientists can’t even replicate the origin of life from non life in the laboratory in spite of all the accumulated and combined intelligent activity of thousands of scientist who believe in this nonsense; and if they were to succeed in creating life from inert non-living matter, this would merely prove that life is the result of intelligent activity.”
Very good point Nic and one that I have often used.
“Scientists actually have peer reviewed evidence. Creationists have a piece of 5th Century fictional literature.”
Madden, this is absolute and complete fiction and a gigantic straw man. Do you have ANYTHING truthful to say about creation scientists or did you get your ph.d. in how to put as many logical fallacies into the shortest space possible.
“The beauty of science is that it has it built into the system to search for proof/data supporting the veracity of an assertion. Science actually embraces correction from experts that do the research.”
Yes, and creation science do EXACTLY that in MANY cases. God didn’t tell us how he created the world or how the flood happened or all kinds of other things.
“Creationism has no such corrections built in, and in fact embraces NOT allowing the evidence get in the way of a good piece of fiction. It is why Intelligent Design/Creationism lost in court. “
Absolute fiction yet again. Creationism has peer reviewed journals and creationist scientists are debating, and correcting each other VERY frequently. ID lost in court SOLEY because people have perverted separation into church and state into meaning that the state should follow a double standard and ban all truth that comes from the Christian religion while teaching all theories from the evolution religion.
“Michael Behe, the best supporter of the "theory" stated under oath: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". How can creationism be taken seriously if its best theories are so pathetic that they are not even submitted for peer review?”
Abiogenesis the equivalent theory on the evolution side has a far worse problem than ID in this area.
“The side issue and reason that we do not teach Intelligent Design in court is that we have it written into our laws to keep church and state separate, something that Adventism has embraced wholeheartedly until as of late. Teaching ID is a violation of that Church/State divide and it has been ruled as such. If you want to teach ID, teach at an Adventists school.”
It absolutely is NOT a violation of church and state. Facts and truths and possible theories about origins should be taught to all and the evidence for each theory provided FAIRLY…so all can evaluate things for themselves. Separation of church and state means that you don’t force people to worship or think as you do about religious matters (and other ones). The founders of America NEVER dreamed and would be shocked to see this perversion of their good principle.
“This week is Darwin's birth week. He rejected the dogma of his day and rightly so, but in so doing created a dogma of his own--that set science free--We have benefited from that science--but those benefits do not and can not validate origins.”
Great point Tom.
“Peer review is usually a crock. I've sat on committees funding research and grants for scientific projects and research. Does anyone believe someone requesting hundreds of thousands of dollars will have a hard time finding corroborating scientists to support his theories? And the scientists who disagree want to disprove other scientists theories to be the top dog, as much as they want to prove their own theories.”
Great point Michael. I think you would like “The Structure of Scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn who pointed out this kind of thing and how scientific objectivity is largely an illusion. He was by the way, Madden, a professor at 3 Ivy league universities. No lightweight. You should read him too. You would learn a lot about how biased scientists are and how most just follow the establishment because research grants, jobs, recognition and much else depends on doing that. And it’s not just in evolution/creation areas. My mentor has his ph.d. in teaching English as a Second Language (ESL). And he has seen MANY cases of it there too. I can point to all kinds of cases of it in MANY fields.
Bryan
Mr. Pendleton I just want to say that I hold you responsible for my lack of sleep the last few days. I have already read "Only a Theory" by Miller but just picked up "Monkey Girl" at the library and have been riveted. I followed the Dover trail pretty closely at the time so I figured the book would be a bit of a drag. Instead I could barely put it down. What a great writer and I think he really tries to give both sides an honest and fair examination regarding motives and behavior.
I think Judge Jones' decision should be required reading for any public school board and this book would be another excellent recommendation for those wanting to dig deeper. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
J.
You are most likely a great geologist. You are also skilled at begging the question. What you call micro evolution, creationists call adaptation. Change within kind! Finches are still finches. Stath is still Stath. Sheep cloned, or not, are still sheep. If you gave a Neaderthal a shave and a hair cut, put him in a Brooks Brothers Suit and set him on a New York Subway he wouldn't call a bit of attention. Ask him about creme bule he wouldn't know what you were talking about. Just as you wouldn't know how to trap a rabbit. All of your bluster you still can't get past the Second Law of Therodynamics. Energy runs down hill, sun or no sun. Evolution hangs it hat on an upward climb from simple to complex--it just doesn't happen that way in nature. You got to have at least a bunsen burner.
In an aside, I have read wider than you an others surmise.
Including the authors cited above. My published work is on
physical anthropology of native Americans, piezoelectricity and bone formation, The bio-mechanics of unilateral tooth movement, vector analysis, learning theory, and management in a health care environment. My work in physical anthropology followed on the heels of work done at Harvard on Eskimos. We both concluded that the contemporary Eskimos, and Western tribes of American indians indeed have a close facial and dental pattern to the contemporary Chinese. We have not studied language patterns, diets are not similar. Hair patterns are grossly similar, and skin colors cover a broad range of yellow-brown-red not necessarily related to latitude.
Tom
Appeal to the majority in this case proves the popularity of the idea to established authorities that have tested it, which is quite different that appealing to the generic masses, but then I think you knew that, I suspect you just didn't want to admit you have so few experts to appeal to.
"Evolution is a faith based position" is a Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, at minimum. And probably an Argumentum ad Nauseam logical fallacy as well, since it is erroneously repeated by creationists so often. The proof of it's absurdity is that Evolution is a tested, verified, and peer reviewed position. But then you probably also knew that, as much as you protest.
Your rationale against morphology is just more of the same creationist . In point of fact Octopi and humans ARE distantly related, and ironically that is yet another thing we CAN prove using your "Observable evidence" standard.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1555.full.pdf
And I quote:
"Although the camera eye of the octopus is very similar to that of humans, phylogenetic and embryological analyses
have suggested that their camera eyes have been acquired independently. It has been known as a typical example of
convergent evolution. To study the molecular basis of convergent evolution of camera eyes, we conducted a
comparative analysis of gene expression in octopus and human camera eyes. We sequenced 16,432 ESTs of the
octopus eye, leading to 1052 nonredundant genes that have matches in the protein database. Comparing these 1052
genes with 13,303 already-known ESTs of the human eye, 729 (69.3%) genes were commonly expressed between the
human and octopus eyes. On the contrary, when we compared octopus eye ESTs with human connective tissue ESTs,
the expression similarity was quite low. To trace the evolutionary changes that are potentially responsible for camera eye formation, we also compared octopus-eye ESTs with the completed genome sequences of other organisms. We
found that 1019 out of the 1052 genes had already existed at the common ancestor of bilateria, and 875 genes were
conserved between humans and octopuses. It suggests that a larger number of conserved genes and their similar gene
expression may be responsible for the convergent evolution of the camera eye."
In short, that is yet another example of how science demolishes the hasty generalizations of creationists. We have 875 genes in common between a human eye and an Octopi. We not only have morphology, we have genetics that can trace genes back to a common source that was evolved from even in divergent and quite different species.
I have noticed that your sources are essentially op-ed pieces from creationist sites. If you are actually interested in me learning from you, I would request that you provide peer-reviewed scientific articles or similar from a reputable scientific news source refuting anything that I have provided as a scientific article or supporting your assertions for that matter. I'm afraid I haven't got time to refute such poor creationist references every time someone posts one. I could take one article just for fun and categorically demolish it, having done so before, but I too have a job.
You say that "within 20 years of the publication of Origin of Species almost NO scientists were creationists" is not true and you can prove it. Ad infintum. Really? Please do so. If you have "ad infinitum" sources of such please provide a very credible and professional historical source of such. I'm genuinely interested. And no, creationist websites do not count as credible, professional, or historical references. Thanks.
A creator is not the simplest explanation under Occam's Razor. It actually assumes that an invisible, unmeasurable, unverifiable, untestable, yet omnipresent, omniscient, etc. etc. entity started it all. Yeah that's simple. I can show the absurdity of that with one metaphor. Let us say that the gods created the earth but that Yahweh was NOT the one that did it. It was the Egyptian god Ra. Or perhaps Vishnu? Maybe Baal? Oh wait, I remember now, there is only the one god, right? But how do we know it was Him?
Maybe, just maybe, we should use an actual rationale and method to sort out which is more likely? You know, like Science? You know, verify what is actually observable and measurable in the field? That method says that the simplest answer is that evolution occurred. It fits the facts better than say Brahma sitting in a Lotus flower waving his arms and creating the world. If your okay with all gods creating the earth, well I guess that would be simpler!
Do not get me wrong. I will repeat that Christians can believe in evolution AND their religion, but then not all Christian groups are fundi-literalists.
I have been thoroughly steeped in Adventist education regarding creationism. In fact, almost certainly better than anyone that hasn't taken a creation-based geology class. I have also debated it more than I care to think about. My education, reading, and discussions have left me singularly unimpressed with the evidence, rationale, tactics, and such from the creationist side. But then you could probably tell that too.
I cannot say it more succinctly than I already have, there is a simple start point and end point to this discussion:
One side takes a faith position, assume it to be true, and then look for pseudo-scientific ideas to support their positions based on a mythological document (Genesis).
The other side uses a logical rational method, the scientific method, to attempt to determine the observations we see in nature.
It is just that simple. Two options. Either one trusts the Genesis mythology, or one trusts research and study. Any shades of grey between those two is contaminated by the mythology, the fiction. One is measurable and testable. One is not. Wanting it to be other than that is like wanting the Torah to solve quantum mechanics. Afraid not.
Very interesting and impressive Tom and I'm sure I could learn much from you in all those areas (and I was NOT intimating that you are not widely read. You are obviously VERY intelligent and have a lot of knowledge and have read a LOT and quite a bit more in some areas than me for sure.) I may be wrong also in my guess (it was a guess) that you haven't debated evolutionists and atheists much or read Thomas Kuhn's work. If so, I stand corrected and am happy to admit that :). But, I find it hard to put faith in philosophies like evolution and atheism whose speculations have such an incredibly poor track record compared to the Bible which has been criticized ad infinitum and in 1000s and millions of cases proved itself accurate. I don't know if Genesis and the creation story will ever be proven conclusively literal by science. It's impossible to prove conclusively NUMEROUS historical events from science. But, for Christians to assume that the Bible is a myth in certain parts...is just not very logical in my opinion given the track record of atheism and evolution.
If creation ever does become a solidly proven event, great although I very much doubt that historical events of that age or older can EVER be proven by science to any degree of certainty. If the creation is not proven conclusively by science in this world, it will be when Jesus comes I'm 99.9% sure since sooooo many of the Bible's other claims which were thought to be in error or just metaphors are not rock solidly proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. There is MUCH evidence from science that what we see now is exactly how it should be if a creation event occurred from all kinds of types of science, even language theory. But, I do recognize that the evolution, abiogenesis and the creation event (but not micro-evolution) all require faith.
Bryan
J,
Appeal to the majority is a fallacy that doesn't prove diddly and you know it. You conveniently ignored my examples from history that prove that even when an establishment and the elite people in history almost all think a certain way, it's been proven false with time. Evolution is just one more of the same.
Evolution is based on faith is a FACT until you provide an UNBROKEN LINE OF DESCENT proving that one life form can evolve across at least the family boundary. PERIOD. FULL STOP. Use bacteria if you wish. Whatever. But nothing else will be conclusive observable proof which science requires. There are NO fallacies in demanding observable evidence of your major claims. You are violating the scientific method by refusing to do so.
"Evolution is a tested, verified, and peer reviewed position." Not verified by observable evidence of macro-evolution. Anything else is just bias and peer review can be and has been done on all sorts of theories that later proved false. You should know that.
"In point of fact Octopi and humans ARE distantly related"
ROFL. And I suppose you can provide us with someone who witnessed an octopi evolving into a human. Common homology and DNA can just as easily prove a common designer. You don't have even the least bit of conclusive evidence that common descent is better than common designer and MUCH evidence against it.
"We not only have morphology, we have genetics that can trace genes back to a common source that was evolved from even in divergent and quite different species."
I've debated this with NUMEROUS others..yes evolutionists can bring speculations from many branches of science. Creationists can do far better than that and from at least as many branches PLUS history and other fields which evolution can't provide hardly at all as well as trillions of observable evidences of it's claims in areas such as micro-evolution and numerous others.
"I have noticed that your sources are essentially op-ed pieces from creationist sites."
ROFL. NO. I suggested 2 major sites that are VERY deep in science. You haven't even bothered to investigate videos by a chair of zoology or a professor with a ph.d. from MIT (who incidentally uses a LOT of evolutionist's research to prove creation theory more scientific and rational. I didn't think this is the place to post long articles although I can do so and may do once.
Madden, there is no use insisting on me providing you with peer reviewed articles from atheistic/evolution journals when anything with a hint of creationism is rejected apriori. It's like trying to get a paper on democracy published in Russia at the height of communism. Don't tell me that you're that naive. But, there are some creationist peer reviewed journals. If you are not able to find them, you should be ashamed of your investigation abilities and objectivity.
If you want to lay ANY claim to scientific objectivity, listen to a couple of Dr. Veith's videos. The links I have provided are NOT poor as you falsely allege. A couple are short and more for laymen, true. Several are QUITE deep and professional/technical. You haven't checked out any of them while I've read most of the ideas you've presented LONG ago.
"I could take one article just for fun and categorically demolish it, having done so before, but I too have a job."
Demolish it with the tactics you're using here??? That would be a waste of your time and mine since you don't even realize all the faith assumptions that your belief is based on and you don't require observable evidence for your belief's major claims and then demand that other beliefs provide it..a massive double standard.
"A creator is not the simplest explanation under Occam's Razor."
Yes, it IS. It makes ONE assumption. And one assumption that has trillions of observable proofs that life always comes from other life and other similar lifeto back it up. Contrast that with at least many millions of assumptions of abiogenesis and evolution with NO observable proofs to back them up.
"Let us say that the gods created the earth but that Yahweh was NOT the one that did it. It was the Egyptian god Ra. Or perhaps Vishnu? Maybe Baal? Oh wait, I remember now, there is only the one god, right? But how do we know it was Him? "
Oh, this tired old argument of relativism (which is self-refuting). We can prove and test the God of the Bible in very similar ways to how we test any scientific theory and actually with more kinds of tests. We can test the Bible's claims with historical evidence, with legal evidence, witih scientific evidence, with experiential evidence, with evidence of prophecy and MUCH more. Very few scientific theories can be tested in as many ways as the Bible's claims can. But, I know very well that the Creator did not speak only to Israelis. The Bible states that God spoke to other nations at times and I have evidence of this from many places. It is no harder to prove the Bible truer than other religions in most cases than it is to prove science more accurate than alchemy.
"Maybe, just maybe, we should use an actual rationale and method to sort out which is more likely? You know, like Science? You know, verify what is actually observable and measurable in the field?"
BRING IT ON. START by sharing some OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE as you said the Scientific method was supposed to do. Can we pit the Bible against atheism (since you appear to be atheist). I have MUCH that I can post here :)....I really shouldn't be doing this since I have other things to do...but I'm always up for this kind of challenge if you set some consistent standards that BOTH sides can be judged EQUALLY on. Or better yet, can we pit creation theory against evolution? Or even macro-evolution against micro? I prefer the first? But Any of those are fine with me.
"That method says that the simplest answer is that evolution occurred."
This is simply irrational and there is no other way to describe it until you provide proof from sequential generations that you KNOW indisputably are ancestors and descendants of each other (and not just by fancy speculations). Homology and even DNA similarities are only speculations and don't conclusively prove ANYTHING.
"Do not get me wrong. I will repeat that Christians can believe in evolution AND their religion, but then not all Christian groups are fundi-literalists."
"I have been thoroughly steeped in Adventist education regarding creationism."
In elementary school maybe. Frankly, I didn't get anything deep from SDA education in the creation science area until university. Even then it was only 1 class and that class didn't even officially deal with creation evolution. Saying this is most unimpressive to me Madden. But, please tell me, what's the deepest creation scientist thing you read.
"I cannot say it more succinctly than I already have, there is a simple start point and end point to this discussion: One side takes a faith position, assume it to be true, and then look for pseudo-scientific ideas to support their positions based on a mythological document (Genesis). The other side uses a logical rational method, the scientific method, to attempt to determine the observations we see in nature."
This is a gigantic straw man on BOTH sides. Nothing else. Micro-evolution for example was a scientific prediction in Genesis. LITERALLY trillions of cases confirm that if observable evidence is demanded, micro-evolution is the way and the ONLY way that life forms develop on this planet. Spontaneous generation was disproven LONG ago...but evolutionists are reviving and evolving this disproven theory.
"It is just that simple. Two options. Either one trusts the Genesis mythology, or one trusts research and study."
False choice logical fallacy. See my next post.
"One is measurable and testable. One is not."
Straw man attack.
"Wanting it to be other than that is like wanting the Torah to solve quantum mechanics. Afraid not."
Another straw man attack and false comparison.
Bryan
Something VERY good and short :) for you to read Madden.
Bryan
SCIENTIFIC TUNNEL VISION
By prestigious psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, from “The Road Less Traveled”
…Many scientists simply do not look at the evidence of the reality of God. They suffer from a kind of tunnel vision, a psychologically self-imposed psychological set of blinders which prevents them from turning their attention to the realm of the spirit.
Among the causes of this scientific tunnel vision I would like to discuss two that result from the nature of scientific tradition. The first of these is the issue of methodology. In its laudable insistence upon experience, accurate observation and verifiability, science has placed great emphasis upon measurement. To measure something is to experience it in a certain dimension, a dimension in which we can make observations of great accuracy which are repeatable by others. The use of measurement has enabled science to make enormous strides in the understanding of the material universe. But, by virtue of its success, measurement has become a kind of scientific idol. The result is an attitude on the part of many scientists of not only skepticism but outright rejection of what cannot be measured. It is as if they were to say, “What we cannot measure, we cannot know; there is no point in worrying about what we cannot know; therefore what cannot be measured is unimportant and unworthy of our observation.” Because of this attitude many scientists exclude from their serious consideration all matters that are—or seem to be –intangible. Including of course the matter of God.
This strange but remarkably common assumption that things that are not easy to study do not merit study is beginning to be challenged by several relatively recent developments within science itself.
(he goes on to talk about how science is developing more sophisticated methods of study and may someday be able to “see” or “measure” everything. I seriously doubt that this day will come soon if at all as he probably does as well. But, maybe there will be ways that will reveal more of God to us. He also talks about the paradoxes that exist in science and how paradox was thought to be error at one time, but is now being realized as often being truth: light is a wave and a particle. The position of electrons are both constant and changing, at rest and in motion (from J. Oppenheimer).
Mystics have spoken to us through the ages in terms of paradox. Is it possible that we are beginning to see a meeting of ground between science and religion? When we are able to say that “a human is both mortal and eternal at the same time” and “light is both a wave and a particle at the same time,” we have begun to speak the same language. Is it possible that the path of spiritual growth that proceeds from religious superstition to scientific skepticism may indeed ultimately lead us to a genuine religious reality?
This beginning possibility of unification of religion and science is the most significant and exciting happening in our intellectual life today. But it is only just beginning. For the most part both the religious and the scientific remain in self-imposed narrow frames of reference, each still largely blinded by its own particular type of tunnel vision. Examine, for instance, the behavior of both in regard to the question of miracles. Even the idea of a miracle is anathema to most scientists. Over the past 400 years or so science has elucidated a number of “natural laws” such as “Two objects attract each other in proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the distance between them” or “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” But having been successful in discovering natural laws, scientists in their world view have made an idol out of the notion of measurement. The result is that any event that cannot be explained by currently understood natural law is assumed to be unreal by the scientific establishment. In regard to methodology, science has tended to say, “What is very difficult to study doesn’t merit study.” And in regard to natural law, science tends to say, “What is difficult to understand doesn’t exist. “ (I really laughed at that one because scientists, especially atheistic ones, do that soooooo often. Even the Christian ones do it at times.)
The church has been a bit more broad minded. To the religious establishment what cannot be understood in terms of known natural law is a miracle, and miracles do exist. But beyond authenticating their existence, the church has not been anxious to look at miracles very closely. “Miracles need not be scientifically examined” has been the prevailing religious attitude. “They should simply be accepted as acts of God.” The religious have not wanted their religion shaken by science, just as the scientific have not wanted their science to be shaken by religion.
…15 years ago, when I graduated from medical school, I was certain that there were no miracles. Today I am certain that miracles abound. This change in my consciousness has been the result of two factors working hand in hand. One factor is a whole variety of experiences I have had as a psychiatrist which initially seemed quite commonplace but which, when I thought about them more deeply, seemed to indicate that my work with patients toward their growth was being remarkably assisted in ways for which I had no logical explanation—that is, ways that were miraculous. These experiences…led me to question my previous assumption that miraculous occurrences were impossible. Once I questioned this assumption I became open to the possible existence of the miraculous. This openness, which was the second factor causing my change in consciousness, then allowed me to begin routinely looking at ordinary existence with an eye for the miraculous. The more I looked, the more I found. If there were but one thing I could hope for from the reader of the remainder of this book, it would be that he or she possesses the capacity to perceive the miraculous.
(he goes on to talk of several experiences of patients who had gone through extreme trauma that should have caused extreme psychosis, but were only mildly affected and of accidents that should have killed people but they somehow escaped unharmed and how the statistics of how often this happens do no match with the idea of it being random chance. He also speaks about the miracle of the unconscious mind and how in many cases it seems that through dreams and other things, the unconscious mind was trying to help illuminate the person’s condition and the revelations were extremely helpful and created much progress. He couldn’t account for how the mind produced certain specific dreams at just the right time for him as a therapist to understand the patient’s real condition. There were a few other things too. He ends the chapter by saying that we need a healthy skepticism of miracles and the paranormal, etc. But, just as much we need skepticism of sciences assumptions that also could be faulty.
J. It is not longer productive for me to continue this
conversation. You attribute to me statements I never made.
You build up straw men and then knock them down and boast you demolished me.
I don't believe in a minute that debate will ever solve this
controversy. Debating skill does not prove truth only the
range, depth, and cunning of the debator.
Christianity is focused on the end of man, not his origin.
How say ye on that issue? Does man have a soul? If so when was it implanted? Do apes need salvation? Or do you reject, New Testament witness as well? If so, why are you on this blog?
This site was created as a conversational witness to the primacy of the Gospel and its hero Jesus Christ. It proposes to discuss, conversationally, the meaning and application of the Good News to this generation and its progeny.
In that effort it is open to discussion of prevailing thought in a wide variety of areas--yet its end point is a redemptive
witness within and beyond the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
My roots are in that Church, but my present thought/faith posture ranges beyond and sometimes tangential to those 28 Fundamental Beliefs--particularly as related to end-time postulates. I stand firm on the origin of man at the direct hand and fiat of God. I also find my redemption in the hands, feet, head and heart of my Redeemer.
The earth reveals a catastrophic history. Geology is an excellent tool in which to view the consequences of that history. It is a limited tool to discovery the time, events, or reasons for or that caused those wounds. The Bible points to the Creator/Redeemer. Science points to observational evidence and speculates on causation.
The Bible demonstrates the limits of man's understanding, not the limits of God's power or love.
The Church has been influenced by many diverse extra-canonnical sources--many as ego-centric as science yet poles apart most of the time.
For me, at least, the missing links in Scripture are far less than the missing links in contemporary evolutionary postulates.
Let us face it: As long as man is man there will be farces in Religion and in Science, let us not perpetuate either. Tom
LOL.
I see, it's all a giant conspiracy to keep "creationist science" down. Too bad you have only had 150 years to rebut Origin of Species, what on earth have all your scientists been doing all that time? (!)
It's pretty straightforward to any objective observer. I provided actual scientific articles. You didn't.
Entire Christian congregations don't even agree with you on Genesis. Why should a trained scientist listen to your version of biblical invocations?
But here's the worst news you've heard all week, or at least with regards to your arguments.....
I was trained as a Creationist and a Geologist by good ole' LLU! I have taken more of this stuff than you can even imagine, or replicate, frankly. Straight up biblical based creationist argumentation from creationist professors! Yes, that's right, you're talking to an actual Loma Linda University trained geologist and (former) creationist. We are a rare breed.
I have read Behe and BELIEVED it, I have been all but force fed Clark, and then WHOA, I actually got to read the ACTUAL scientific evidence after a long run of what I later discovered was poor training in University! It's amazing what one does when one is given all the facts.
Behold, Evolutionist!
You'll have to excuse me if your arguments fall on deaf and jaded ears. I've already heard them from professors and then found out they were wrong. Catagorically. Emperically. They got the geology mostly right, thank God, but man, if you can't get convincing evidence from the very people that should have this stuff DOWN, then what hope does one have as a layperson?
So here's the good part. Speaking from this extensive experience of creationist thought, I am also a former Adventist. Why? Because your creationists LIED to me. That's right, your position(s) blew me out of the Adventist church because of your insistence that Genesis is literal. It was from there that I started looking into what ELSE the Adventists church (and others) have wrong. You see, Christians do not agree on this, as I keep saying. One can evaluate the merits (or lack thereof) of a given religion, based on a sampling of equivalent religions and how they handle their version of the "truth".
Yours is severely lacking, in my personal AND professional opinion.
Now do with that what you will. I don't normally talk this much about myself online, frankly, you are being blessed. Hopefully some other people on this Forum will read my experience and LEARN from it. Creationist positions are rubbish, scientifically, logically, and from any objective measure of "truth".
I should know. Your people taught me.
You say that "within 20 years of the publication of Origin of Species almost NO scientists were creationists" is not true and you can prove it. Ad infintum. Really? Please do so. If you have "ad infinitum" sources of such please provide a very credible and professional historical source of such. I'm genuinely interested. And no, creationist websites do not count as credible, professional, or historical references. Thanks.
--
You asked for it :). Don't say I didn't warn you. This post is NOT scientific proof of creation below. I am not claiming it as such. It's just showing that many scientists of the highest intelligence have weighed evidence on BOTH sides and think it very scientific to be Christians and creationists. BTW, this is just the intro to the creationist arguments. We haven't barely even started and I've only given you a couple links to heavy duty science stuff such as Dr. Veith's material. There is MUCH more :). Basically I'm saying with this post that it is completely irrational to call Christian scientists and creation scientists irrational. The only people who do that are ignorant of basic historical and contemporary facts.
First are a few quotes (a couple by Christians, most by non-Christians) saying that evolution doesn't have scientific support. Then are 2 articles by elite Christian scientists. Then a list of MANY Christian scientists who founded areas of science...and many great scientists who believed in Christianity and creationismlong after 20 years after Origin of the species. Many of them say things similarly to Dr. Von Braun, 1st director of NASA (which I am sure you realize was much later than 20 years after Origin of the Species):
Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) wrote, "There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator."
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.
· UCLA Berkeley Professor Phillip Johnson-considers the weakness of evolution's scientific standing, where "an honest appraisal of the evidence would sweep evolution convincingly into the dustbin of history".
Michael Polanyi, held the chair in physical chemistry and social sciences at Manchester University, was one of the 20th century’s great scientific philosophers, and disturbed the ivied halls of academia by declaring in 1958: “The book of Genesis and its great pictorial illustrations, like the frescoes of Michelangelo, remain a far more intelligent account of the nature and origin of the universe than the representation of the world as a chance collocation of atoms.”
Here are some quotes mostly by non-Christians and/or evolutionists (as far as I've been able to ascertain) for you regarding how scientific evolution is.
· Karl Popper
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme ....." Karl Popper in his autobiography "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", Fontana Books, 1976
· Dr George Wald - winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize for Science.
When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." Dr George Wald. Quoted in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:3
· Dr T.N. Tahmisian - physiologist (The Atomic Energy Commission, USA).
(12) "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." T.N. Tahmisian. Quoted by N.J. Mitchell in the book "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon Pub: UK, 1983 [title page]
· Dr Albert Fleischmann - (University of Erlangen, Germany)
(16) "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120
· "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." -Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.
· “...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach." -Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist nor a Christian.)
· Professor Louis Bounoure - former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director (Strasbourg Zoological Museum), Director of Research (French National Centre of Scientific Research).
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Louis Bounoure, quoted in The Advocate, Thursday March 8, 1984 p:17
· "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88. (Back to top)
· “All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.
· “Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.
· “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16
· “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, p. 210
· “Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294
· “... human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59
· “Norm Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ... Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1977, p. 424.
(also, have you read anything about Anthony Flew, for decades the world's leading atheist, who now has rejected atheism and thinks the evidence in science points to at least a supernatural creator and maybe even a personal God). This is just a small amount of the actual evidence that exists :).
· Dr. Ernst Chain - Nobel Prize winning biochemist.
Ernst Chain, who helped develop penicillin, in 1972, has called the theory of evolution, "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life." He is also on record as saying
"I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts."
[Ernst B. Chain, as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148 (emphasis added).]
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945).
· "To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).
· “Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. ...It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process...After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ...If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back....Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science." -I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
· Professor Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist at the University of California at Berkeley, listed a series of complex structures from the hair of mammals to hemoglobin that he thought could not have been produced by the thousands of years of small mutations. As Goldschmidt put it "To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against the wall."
"The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed." ... The Material Basis of Evolution (1940), New Haven: Yale University Press, page 395.
MANY more at www.evolutionisdead.com
Next are the articles and lists of famous Christians and creationists.
Enjoy :),
Bryan
------
SCIENTISTS AND THEIR GODS by Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, world famous chemist (Great article!!)
(also known as Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? )
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html
Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize 5 times and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.
The Genesis of This Lecture
I first began teaching freshman chemistry at Berkeley in the spring of 1983. Typically we lectured in halls that held about 550. On the first day of class you could fit in 680, which we had that particular morning. It was a full auditorium. Those of you who have had freshman chemistry at a large university will know that many have mixed feelings about that course.
I had never addressed a group of 680 people before and was a bit concerned about it. But I had a fantastic demonstration prepared for them. At Berkeley in the physical science lecture hall, the stage is in three parts. It rotated around, so you could go to your part of the stage and work for several hours before your lecture, getting everything ready. My assistant, Lonny Martin who did all the chemistry demonstrations at Berkley, was in the process of setting up 10 moles of a large number of quantities—10 moles of benzene, iron, mercury, ethyl alcohol, water, etc. At just the right time, at the grand crescendo of this lecture, I was going to press the button and Lonny would come turning around and show them the ten moles of various items. The student would have great insight as they realized that all these had in common was about the same number of molecules of each one.
It was going to be wonderful. We got to that point in the lecture and I said, "Lonny, come around and show us the moles." I pressed the button to rotate the stage but nothing happened. I didn't realize that he was overriding my button press because he wasn't ready with the moles. This was very embarrassing. I went out in front of the 680 students and was really at a complete loss of what to say, so I made some unprepared remarks. I said, "While we're waiting for the moles, let me tell you what happened to me in church yesterday morning."
I was desperate. There was great silence among those 680 students. They had come with all manner of anticipations about freshman chemistry, but stories about church were not among them!
I continued, "Let me tell you what my Sunday School teacher said yesterday." That raised their interest even more. "I was hoping the group at church would give me some support, moral, spiritual, or whatever for dealing with this large class, but I received none. In fact, the Sunday School teacher asked the class, in honor of me:
What was the difference between a dead dog lying in the middle of the street and a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the street?
The class was excited about this and I hadn't even gotten to the punch line. They roared with laughter. The very concept of a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the street was hilarious to them. I'm sure some of them began to think, "If this guy were to become a dead chemistry professor very close to the final exam, we probably wouldn't have to take the final exam. They'd probably give us all passing grades and this would be wonderful."
I told them my Sunday school teacher had said that the difference between the dead dog lying in the middle of the road and the dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the road is that there are skid marks in front of the dead dog.
The class thought this was wonderful! Just as they settled down, I pressed the button and around came Lonny with the moles. It was a wonderful beginning to my career as a freshman chemistry lecturer.
About 50 students came down at the end of class. About half had the usual questions like "Which dot do I punch out of this registration card?" There is always some of that. But about half of these students all had something like the same question. Basically they wanted to know "What were you doing in church yesterday?" One in particular said, "The person I most have admired in my life was my high school chemistry teacher last year. He told me with great certainty that it was impossible to be a practicing chemist and have any religious view whatever. What do you think about that?"
We didn't have a long discussion at that time, but the students asked me if I would speak further on this topic. That became the origin of this lecture.
I gave this talk in Berkeley and in the San Francisco area many times. When I moved to the University of Georgia several years ago, the interest increased. And some faculty members complained to the administration. It was an interesting chapter in my life. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the largest newspaper in the southeastern United States, came out with an editorial supporting my right to give this talk, saying, "Fanatics are demanding rigorous control over the dissemination of ideas."
A Perspective on the Relation of Science and Christianity
Let's put this question of the relationship between science and Christianity with as broadest, most reasonable perspective we can. The relation between science and other intellectual pursuits has not always been easy. Therefore, many feel there has been a terrible warfare between science and Christianity. But I feel this is not the whole story.
For example, the recent literature text by Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundeen says,
Because in recent history, literature has often found itself in opposition to science, to understand modern views about literature the dominance of science in our culture. For several centuries, scientists have set the standards of truth for Western culture. And their undeniable usefulness in helping us organize, analyze, and manipulate facts has given them an unprecedented importance in modern society.
Not everybody has liked that. For example, John Keats, the great romantic poet, did not like Isaac Newton's view of reality. He said it threatened to destroy all the beauty in the universe. He feared that a world in which myths and poetic visions had vanished would become a barren and uninviting place. In his poem Lamia, he talks about this destructive power. In this poem, he calls "science" "philosophy", so I will try to replace the word "philosophy" with "science" because that is what he means.
Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold science?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven
We knew her woof and texture.
She is given in the dull catalog of common things.
Science will clip an angels wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air and gnome's mind,
Unweave a rainbow.
My point is there has been some sparring between science and virtually every other intellectual endeavor. So it should not be entirely surprising if there weren't a bit of that between science and Christianity.
Has Science Disproved God?
Nevertheless, the position is commonly stated that "science has disproved God." C. S. Lewis says, in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, that he believed that statement. He talks about the atheism of his early youth and credits it to science. He says,
You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority.
What he's saying is that somebody told him that science had disproved God and he believe it, even though he didn't know anything about science.
A more balanced view is this by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger. He was the founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger's equation. He says,
I'm very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.
People do tell good stories. Scientists do tell some interesting stories about religion. This one is from Chemistry in Britain, which is kind of like the Time Magazine of the chemical profession in England. Talking about the release of a new book on science policy, they explore an interesting idea.
If God applied to the government for a research grant for the development of a heaven and earth, he would be turned down on the following grounds:
His project is too ambitious.
He has no previous track record.
His only publication is only a book and not a paper in a refereed journal.
He refuses to collaborate with his biggest competitor.
His proposal for a heaven and earth is all up in the air.
The Alternatives to Belief in the Sovereign God of the Universe
Lev Landau
I want to give examples of two atheists. The first is Lev Landau, the most brilliant Soviet physicist of this century. He was the author of many famous books with his coworker Lifchets. I actually used some of these books as a student at M.I.T. This is a story about Landau from his good friend and biographer Kolotnikov. This appeared in Physics Today. This is a story from the end of Landau's life. Kolotnikov says
The last time I saw Landau was in 1968 after he had an operation. His health had greatly deteriorated. Lifchets and I were summoned to the hospital. We were informed that there was practically no chance he could be saved. When I entered his ward, Landau was lying on his side with his face turned to the wall. He heard my steps, turned his head, and said, "Kollat, please save me." Those were the last words I heard from Landau. He died that night.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Chandrasekhar was a famous astrophysicist. He won the Nobel prize in physics in 1983. He was a faculty member at the University of Chicago for many years. At the back of his biography is an interview. Chandrasekhar says,
In fact, I consider myself an atheist. But I have a feeling of disappointment because the hope for contentment and a peaceful outlook on life as the result of pursuing a goal has remained largely unfulfilled.
His biographer is astonished. He says:
What? I don't understand. You mean, single–minded pursuit of science, understanding parts of nature and comprehending nature with such enormous success still leaves you with a feeling of discontentment?
Chandrasekhar continues in a serious way, saying:
I don't really have a sense of fulfillment. All I have done seems to not be very much.
The biographer seeks to lighten up the discussion a little saying that everybody has the same sort of feelings. But Chandrasekhar will not let him do this, saying:
Well that may be, but the fact that other people experience it doesn't change the fact that one is experiencing it. It doesn't become less personal on that account.
And Chandrasekhar's final statement:
What is true in my own personal case is that I simply don't have that sense of harmony which I'd hoped for when I was young. I've persevered in science for over fifty years. The time I've devoted to other things is miniscule.
Is it Possible to be a Scientist and a Christian?
So the question I want to explore is the one that I was asked by that young man after my freshman chemistry class at Berkeley, "Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian." The student and his high school chemistry teacher obviously thought it was not possible.
C. P. Snow
Let me begin from pretty neutral ground by quoting two people with no particular theistic inclination. The first one is C. P. Snow. C. P. Snow used to be very famous as the author of a book called The Two Cultures. C. P. Snow was a physical chemist at Oxford University. He discovered about halfway through his career that he also was a gifted writer and he began writing novels. They are about university life in England. One in particular is called Masters, which I would recommend. C. P. Snow became quite wealthy doing this and then he was able to sit in an in–between position, between the world of the sciences and the world of literature.
He wrote this book, which in it's time was very famous, about the two cultures—the sciences and the humanities. He said statistically slightly more scientists are in religious terms, unbelievers, compared with the rest of the intellectual world, although there are plenty that are religious and that seems to be increasingly so among the young. So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? C. P. Snow, who was certainly not a Christian, said yes.
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman, Nobel prize in physics in 1965, was a very unusual person. He said some 9 years before receiving the Nobel prize, "Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way." So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? Yes according to Richard Feynman.
A good summary statement in this regard is by Alan Lightman, who has written a very well–received book called Origins. He's an M.I.T. professor who has published this book with Harvard University Press. He says,
References to God continued in the scientific literature until the middle to late 1800's. It seems likely that the lack of religious references after this time seem more from a change in social and professional conventions among scientists rather than from any change in underlying thought. Indeed, contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.
Now one could regard that statement as strictly anecdotal. Americans love statistics. Here's the result of a poll of the professional society Sigma Zi. Three thousand three hundred responded, so this is certainly beyond statistical uncertainty. The headline says, "Scientists are anchored in the U. S. mainstream." It says that half participate in religious activities regularly. Looking at the poll is that 43% of Ph.D. scientists are in church on a typical Sunday. In the American public, 44% are in church on a typical Sunday. So it's clear that whatever it is that causes people to have religious inclinations is unrelated to having an advanced degree in science.
Michael Polanyi
Let go a little deeper with a statement from Michael Polanyi, professor of chemistry and then philosophy at the University of Manchester. His son, John Polanyi, won the Nobel prize in 1986. I think that it's probably true that when John Polanyi's scientific accomplishments, which have been magnificent, have been mostly forgotten, his father's work will continue.
Michael Polanyi was a great physical chemist at the University of Manchester. About halfway through his career, he switched over to philosophy. He was equally distinguished there. His books are not easy to ready. His most influential book is called Personal Knowledge. He was of Jewish physical descent. He was born in Hungary. About the same time he switched from chemistry to philosophy, he joined the Roman Catholic church. He said,
I shall reexamine the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they are more extensive than is usually thought. They will appear to coextend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence. Hence I will urge our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions.
If you read the rest of the book, you will probably make the same conclusion that I make. I've concluded that Polanyi is pointing out that the observer is always there in the laboratory. He always makes conclusions. He is never neutral. Every scientist brings presuppositions to his or her work. A scientist, for example, never questions the basic soundness of the scientific method. This faith of the scientist arose historically from the Christian belief that God the father created a perfectly orderly universe.
Now I want to give you some evidence of that.
Science Developed in a Christian Environment
I'd like to begin with an outrageous statement that always causes reaction. This is a statement from a British scientist, Robert Clark. It will make you think. He says,
However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non–Christian world felt there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire–bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven thus incurring the wrath of the Gods."
I'd prefer if he had said "sustained scientific development." I think he's gone a little too far here, but this will certainly give people something to think about.
Francis Bacon
Let's explore the idea involved in the statements that Clark and Polanyi made, that is, that science grew up in a Christian environment. I was taught that Francis Bacon discovered the scientific method. The higher critics now claim he stole it from somebody else and just popularized it. We'll leave that to the science historians to settle.
One of Francis Bacon's statements is called the two–books statement. It's very famous. He said:
Let no one think or maintain that a person can search too far or be too well studied in either the book of God's word or the book of God's works.
He's talking about the Bible as the book of God's words and nature as the book of God's works. He is encouraging learning as much as possible about both. So right at the beginning of the scientific method, we have this statement.
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Kepler posited the idea of elliptical orbits for planets. He's considered the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion. He was a devout Lutheran Christian. When he was asked the question "Why do you do science?", he answered that he desired in his scientific research to obtain a sample test of the delight of the Divine Creator in his work and to partake of his joy. This has been said in many ways by other people, to think God's thoughts after him, to know the mind of man. Kepler might be considered a Deist based on this first statement alone. But he later said:
I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.
Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal was a magnificent scientist. He is the father of the mathematical theory of probability and combinatorial analysis. He provided the essential link between the mechanics of fluids and the mechanics of rigid bodies. He is the only physical scientist to make profound contributions to Christian thinking. Many of these thoughts are found in the little book, The Pensees, which I had to read as a sophomore at M.I.T. (They were trying to civilize us geeks at M.I.T., but a few years later decided that it wasn't working, so we didn't have to take any more humanities courses.)
Pascal's theology is centered on the person of Jesus Christ as Savior and based on personal experience. He stated:
God makes people conscious of their inward wretchedness, which the Bible calls "sin" and his infinite mercy. Unites himself to their inmost soul, fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, renders them incapable of any other end than Himself. Jesus Christ is the end of all and the center to which all tends.
Pascal also said:
At the center of every human being is a God–shaped vacuum which can only be filled by Jesus Christ.
Robert Boyle
Robert Boyle was perhaps the first chemist. He developed the idea of atoms. Many of my freshman chemistry students know Boyle's law. Every once in a while I'll meet one of my former chemistry students. I ask them "What do you remember from the course?" Occasionally they will say: pv = nrt. Then I know I was successful. This is the ideal gas law of which Boyle's law is a part.
Boyle was a busy man. He wrote many books. One is The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. He personally endowed an annual lectureship promoted to the defense of Christianity against indifferentism and atheism. He was a good friend of Richard Baxter, one of the great Puritan theologians. He was governor of the Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England.
Isaac Newton
Although I disagree, a recent poll on who the most important person of history was gave that honor to Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a mathematician, physicist, co–discoverer with Liebnitz of calculus, the founder of classical physics. He was the first of the three great theoretical physicists. He wrote about a lot of other things. He tried to do chemistry, but was a little bit before his time. He wrote more books on theology than on science. He wrote one about the return of Jesus Christ entitled Observations on the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of Saint John. He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
One might assume from this statement that Newton was a Deist (system of natural religion that affirms God's existence but denies revelation). However, quotes like this shows this is not true:
There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.
One concludes that Newton was a Biblical literalist. It was not enough that an article of faith could be deduced from Scripture, he said:
It must be expressed in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the apostles. For men are apt to run into partings about deductions. All the old heresies lie in deductions. The true faith was in the Biblical texts.
George Trevellian, a secular historian, summarized the contributions of these individuals as follows:
Boyle, Newton and the early members of the Royal Society were religious men who repudiated the skeptical doctrines of Thomas Hobbs. But they familiarized the minds of their countrymen with the idea of law in the universe and with scientific methods of inquiry to discover truth. It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion. Newton lived and died in that faith.
Michael Faraday
My very favorite—and probably the greatest experimental scientist of all—is Michael Faraday. The two hundredth birthday of Michael Faraday's birth was recently celebrated at the Royal Institution (multi–disciplinary research laboratory in London). There was an interesting article published by my friend Sir John Thomas, who said if Michael Faraday had been living in the era of the Nobel prize, he would have been worthy of at least eight Nobel prizes. Faraday discovered benzene and electromagnetic radiation, invented the generator and was the main architect of classical field theory.
Let me contrast the end of his life with the end of Lev Landau's life. Faraday was close to death. A friend and well–wisher came by and said, "Sir Michael, what speculations have you now?" This friend was trying to introduce some levity into the situation. Faraday's career had consisted of making speculations about science and then dash into the laboratory to either prove or disprove them. It was a reasonable thing to say.
Faraday took it very seriously. He replied:
Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don't rest my dying head upon speculations for "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day."
James Clerk Maxwell
The second of the three great theoretical physicist of all time would certainly have been James Clerk Maxwell. Someone has documented Maxwell's career this way:
Maxwell possessed all the gifts necessary for revolutionary advances in theoretical physics—a profound grasp of physical reality, great mathematical ability, total absence of preconceived notions, a creative imagination of the highest order. He possessed also the gift to recognize the right task for this genius—the mathematical interpretation of Faraday's concept of electromagnetic field. Maxwell's successful completion of this task resulting in the mathematical [field] equations bearing his name, constituted one of the great achievements of the human intellect.
I disagree with one statement made above. If Maxwell indeed had a total absence of preconceived notions, he would have accomplished a total absence of science. So this is obviously written by somebody who is not a scientist (a squishyhead). However, this statement is basically good.
Maxwell said:
Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to his righteousness and are willing to receive his gift [of eternal life in Jesus Christ]. They are to be conformed to the image of his Son and when that is fulfilled and God sees they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation.
Maxwell and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Many wonder what he thought of Darwin's theories. In fact, once he was to go to a meeting on the Italian Riviera in February to discuss new developments in science and the Bible. If you've ever spent time in Cambridge, England, you know it is very gloomy in the wintertime. If I had been a faculty there, I would have taken an opportunity to go to the Italian Riviera at this time of the year.
Maxwell turned down the invitation. He explained:
The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.
This is true. An example of this is the steady–state theory, which was popularized by Fred Hoyle and many others. It is one of the two competing theories of the origin of the universe. The steady–state hypothesis basically says that what you see is what was always there. It became less tenable in 1965 with the observation of the microwave background radiation by Arnold Pansias and Robert Wilson. There are not very many people left who believe in the steady–state hypothesis. It is interesting to go back to about 1960 and find commentaries on the book of Genesis and see how they explain how the steady–state hypothesis can be reconciled with the first chapter of Genesis. Any reasonable person can see that Genesis is talking about a beginning from nothing (ex nihilo), so it takes interesting explanations to reconcile a beginning with the steady–state hypothesis.
The steady–state hypothesis is going to be, within about 20 years, gone and forgotten. These commentaries will probably still be available in libraries and no one will be able to understand them.
Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity
[Shaefer shows audience a well–known cartoon].
In checking with several mathematicians, I came to realize that the equation in this cartoon means absolutely nothing at all, but the punch line is appropriate. [One character] says, "What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years." I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don't think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.
Somebody who was obviously not an admirer of the Christianity of Faraday and Maxwell said:
The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.
What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.
Organic Chemists
William Henry Perkin
I need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.
George Stokes
We can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.
Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:
Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….
William Thomson
William Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:
Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.
J. J. Thomson
In 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.
The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.
J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,
In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.
Theoretical Chemist
Charles Coulson
Charles Coulson is one of the three principal architects of the molecular orbital theory. He probably would have received the Nobel prize but he did not pass the first test. The first test to get the Nobel prize is to live to be 65 years old. The second test is to have done something very important when you were about 30 years old. Coulson did very significant work when he was in his thirties, but he died at 64, thus disqualifying himself from the Nobel prize.
Coulson, a professor of mathematics at Oxford University for many years was also a Methodist lay minister. He was a spokesman for Christians in academic science and the author of the term "God of the gaps" theology.
From the biographical memoir of the Royal Society after Charles Coulson's death, we read a description of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ in 1930 as a 20–year–old student at Cambridge University. Coulson testified:
There were some ten of us and together we sought for God and together we found Him. I learned for the first time in my life that God was my friend. God became real to me, utterly real. I knew Him and could talk with Him as I never imagined it before and these prayers were the most glorious moment of the day. Life had a purpose and that purpose coloured everything.
Coulson's experience is fairly similar to my own at Berkeley. It would be nice if I could say there was a thunderclap from heaven and God spoke to me in audible terms and that is why I became a Christian. However, it did not happen that way, but I did have this same perception Coulson is talking about—this sense of purpose and more of a vividness to the colors of life.
The successor to Coulson as theoretical chemistry professor at Oxford, was Norman March, a good friend of mine. He as well is a Methodist lay minister.
Robert Griffiths, a member of our U.S. Academy of Sciences, Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University received one of the most coveted awards of the American Physical Society in 1984 on his work in physical mechanics and thermodynamics. Physics Today said he is an evangelical Christian who is an amateur theologian and who helps teach a course on Christianity and science.
He recently said:
If we need an atheist for a debate, I'd go to the philosophy department—the physics department isn't much use.
At Berkeley University, among 55 chemistry professors, we only had one who was willing to openly identify himself as an atheist, my good friend Bob, with whom I still have many discussions about spiritual things.
Richard Bube
For many years, Bube was the chairman of the department of materials science at Stanford and carried out foundational work on solid state physics concerning semiconductors. He said:
There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.
John Suppe
Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and noted professor of geology at Princeton, expert in the are of tectonics, began a long search for God as a Christian faculty member. He began attending services in the Princeton Chapel, reading the Bible and other Christian books. He committed Himself to Christ and had his first real experience of Christian fellowship in Taiwan, where he is on a fellowship. He states:
Some non–scientist Christians, when they meet a Christian, will call on to debate evolution. That is definitely the wrong thing to do. If you know what problems scientists have in their lives—pride, selfish ambition, jealousy—that's exactly the kind of thing Jesus Christ said that He came to resolve by His death on the cross. Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflict with each other. The gospel is the same for scientists as it is for anyone. Evolution is basically a red herring; if scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won't be found in evolution. I have never met a non–Christian who brought up evolution with me.
Charles H. Townes
My candidate for the scientist of the century is Charlie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did something fairly significant when he discovered the laser. He almost got a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. He has written his autobiography, entitled Making Waves (a pun referring to the wavelike phenomenon of lasers).
An excerpt from his life's story:
You may well ask, "Where does God come into this," to me, that's almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular "where"—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me.
At eighty [years old], Charlie Townes still has a very active research program at Berkeley.
Arthur Schawlow
Schawlow won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford and identifies himself as a Christian. He makes this unusual statement which I think could only be made by a scientist:
We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells so much about God in widely accessible, human terms.
Allan Sandage
The world's greatest observational cosmologist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution, was called the Grand Old Man of cosmology by The New York Times when he won a $1 million prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He said:
The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures.
In one book, Sandage was asked the classic question, "Can one be a scientist and a Christian?" and he replied, "Yes, I am." Ethnically Jewish, Sandage became a Christian at the age of fifty—if that doesn't prove that it's never too late, I don't know what does!
This is the man who is responsible for our best values for the age of the universe: something like 14 billion years. Yet, when this brilliant cosmologist is asked to explain how one can be a scientist and a Christian, he doesn't turn to astronomy, but rather to biology:
The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance…I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order and each of its organisms is simply too well put together.
William Phillips
Now in physics, you can be a lot younger and get the [Nobel] Prize. Phillips is not even 50 years old and he's got it already. His citation was for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. At a press conference following the announcement of his winning the Nobel Prize, he said:
God has given us an incredibly fascinating world to live in and explore.
According to The New York Times, Phillips "formed and sings in the gospel choir at Fairhaven United Methodist Church, a multi–racial congregation of about 300 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also teaches Sunday School and leads Bible studies." If you read further in that article, you find out that every Saturday afternoon, he drives with his wife into downtown Washington, D.C. to pick up a blind, 87–year–old African American lady to take her grocery shopping and then to dinner.
David Cole & Francis Collins
Since my area of expertise is right between chemistry and physics, I cannot speak as well for the field of biological sciences. However, my longtime colleague, Berkeley biochemist David Cole and cystic fibrosis pioneer, Francis Collins—director of the Human Genome Project, the largest scientific project ever undertaken—are both well–known as outspoken Christians.
Why Are There So Few Atheists Among Physicists?
Many scientists are considering the facts before them. They say things like:
The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions.
—Paul Davies
In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that produced life like ours are immense.
—Stephen Hawking
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
—Fred Hoyle
As the Apostle Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:
Since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.
Why the Perception of Ongoing Battle?
The last question I want to ask, then, is this, Why do so many people still think that there is an ongoing battle between science and Christianity? I don't deny that there is an ongoing discussion. But I think the facts are that, what you think about God doesn't depend on whether you have a Ph.D. in the sciences.
Why would some people like to think that this supposed battle rages on? At least in part, I honestly feel it is a misrepresentation. Let me give you just one example. Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University, the first university in the United States formed on strictly secular principles. (All others had been founded on a Christian basis.) He wrote a very famous book, The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology, in 1896. An excerpt:
[John] Calvin took the lead in his commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not the center of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the 93rd Psalm and asked, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
(This is not making John Calvin look very good!) What's the real story behind this? Alistair McGrath, Brampton Lecturer at Oxford University and perhaps the greatest living scholar on Calvin, has recently written an authoritative biography of Calvin, in which he goes into question with great detail:
This assertion of Calvin is slavishly repeated by virtually every science writer on the theme of religion and science, such as Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy. Yet it may be stated categorically that Calvin wrote no such words in his Genesis commentary and expressed no such sentiments in any of his known writings. The assertion that he did is to be found characteristically unsubstantiated in the writings of the nineteenth century….
It would be fair to ask what Calvin really thought of Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the answer is that we don't know. He probably didn't even know about him—Copernicus was not exactly a household name in France or Switzerland in 1520. But in his preface of his translation of the New Testament into French, Calvin wrote:
The whole point of Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and, having come to know Him with all that this implies, we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more.
Conclusion
I hope that I have given you a flavor of the history of science. Those of you who have taken a freshman chemistry or physics course will surely find many of these people familiar. In fact, the reason I have prepared this talk is that these represent the very people I have taught in such courses.
There is a tremendous tradition of distinguished scientists who were and are Christians. I hope that my work is considered sufficiently outstanding to fall into the distinguished among that category. I also hope I have given you enough evidence that you will never again believe that it is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian.
----------------------
A SCIENTIST REFLECTS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEF, by Dr. Allan Sandage, world famous cosmologist
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html
Dr. Allan Sandage, The world's greatest observational cosmologist Alan Sandage, of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution, won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) became a Christian after being a scientist
Q. Can the existence of God be proved?
I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.
Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality.
The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science. To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm. For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.
Q. Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?
In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.
Science makes explicit the quite incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.
Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected?
But we must admit that those scientists that want to see design will see design. Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.
There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.
If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.
I believe there is a clear, heavy, and immediate responsibility for the church to understand and to believe in the extraordinary results and claims of science. Its success is simply too evident and visible to ignore. It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionalist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.
Q. Do recent astronomical discoveries have theological significance?
I would say not, although the discovery of the expansion of the Universe with its consequences concerning the possibility that astronomers have identified the creation event does put astronomical cosmology close to the type of medieval natural theology that attempted to find God by identifying the first cause. Astronomers may have found the first effect, but not, thereby, necessarily the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas.
Nevertheless, there are serious scientific papers discussing events very shortly after the big bang creation (ex nihilo?) out of which all the types of matter that we know (baryons, electrons, photons, etc.) were made, and in what quantities. Even the creation of matter is said now to be understood. Astronomical observations have also suggested that this creation event, signaled by the expansion of the Universe, has happened only once. The expansion will continue forever, the Universe will not collapse upon itself, and therefore this type of creation will not happen again.
But knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator, nor do any astronomical findings tell us why the event occurred. It is truly supernatural (i.e. outside our understanding of the natural order of things), and by this definition a miracle. But the nature of God is not to be found within any part of these findings of science. For that, one must turn to the scriptures, if indeed an answer is to be had within our finite human understanding.
Q. Can a person be a scientist and also be a Christian?
Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-an architect for believers-a mystery to be solved by science (even as to why) sometime in the indefinite future for materialist reductionalists.
This situation of the complication and the order to function of an organism, where the sum is greater than its parts (i.e. has a higher order), becomes more astonishing every year as the scientific results become more detailed. Because of this, many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work. In the final analysis it is a faith made stronger through the argument by design. I simply do not now believe that the reductionalist philosophy, so necessary to pursue the scientific method and, to repeat, the method which all scientists must master and practice with all their might and skill in their laboratory, can explain everything.
Having, then, been forced via the route of Pascal and Kierkegaard in their need for purpose to come to the edge of the abyss of reason, scientists can, with Anselm "believe in order to understand" what they see, rather than "understand in order to believe." Having willed oneself to faith by jumping to the other side, one can pull, at first, a wee small thread across the abyss, pulling in turn a still more sturdy rope, until finally one can build a bridge that crosses in reverse the chasm that connects the sides of life that are reason and faith. It is, then, by faith that a scientist can become a Christian, and yet remain a scientist-believing in some form of Abelard's dictum.
Without that faith there is no purpose, and without purpose all the arguments for its need drive one once again to build Pascal's bridge.
==============
Here is a list of branches of science that were started by Christians and pioneering Christians in science and includes at the end a list of some who are teaching and researching at the highest levels currently.
· SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste,* a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar *Roger Bacon.* Both PREDICTED that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed. Bacon especially ennumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.
· PHYSICS. It is almost impossible to list the Christians active in the history of physics. A short list would include *Philoponus,* *Bradwardine,* possibly *Buridan,* *Galileo,* and *Newton,* the Mertonians, *Grosseteste,* *Faraday,* *Maxwell,* *Thompson (Kelvin),* *Tait,* and more.
Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory. Abbé Georges Lemaître, was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest and the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.( “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91 (1931): 483-90.)
· THERMODYNAMICS. *James Joule,* and *Lord Kelvin* are two famous names associated with the development of thermodynamics. Both were Christians, Kelvin more openly so.
· GEOLOGY. *Nels Steno,* who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology.
· ROCKETRY & SPACE: Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
"There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator."
Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912 -1977), NASA director and "father of the American Space Program."
“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.
· VACCINATION. The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner,* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.
· ANESTHESIOLOGY. *Crawford Long,* one of the three Americans who discovered anesthesia became a Christian. *James Young Simpson,* who championed its use in Britain was also a professing Christian, an ardent New Presbyterian.
· ANTISEPTIC SURGERY. First championed by the Quaker doctor *Joseph Lister* against tremendous opposition, antiseptic surgery was based directly on the theories of *Louis Pasteur.* Antiseptic surgery sought to kill germs, primarily by the use of carbolic acid.
Pasteur (1822-1895), dean of the faculty of sciences at Lille University, wrote: "A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him." Louis Pasteur
· BACTERIOLOGY. Bacteria were first observed by the Reformed Dutchman *Anton von Leeuwenhoek* and were received with considerable skepticism.
· COMPUTER SCIENCE. Several Christians had important roles in the development of the computer. *Blaise Pascal* built the first workable computing machine. It was too cumbersome to be cost effective. Charles Babbage helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine.
· CRYOLOGY. *Lord Kelvin,* a professor who opened each class with prayer and an apologist for creationist ideas, did fundamental work which led to ice-making machines.
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." -Lord Kelvin.
· STATISTICAL MECHANICS. The American Congregationalist *Josiah Willard Gibbs* and the French Catholic *Pierre Duhem* were two Christians whose work led to an understanding of the thermodynamics of and equilibrium in chemical systems.
· WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. *Thomas Young,* a Quaker, was the first to perform a double slit experiment and to show that light acted as a wave. The French Protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* confirmed and mathematized Young's findings.
· FIELD THEORY. *Michael Faraday* first envisioned field theory. Having little mathematics, he was forced to rely on imagination to describe what he saw. He belonged to a small Baptist group. Faith, humility and love governed his life.
· EXPANDING UNIVERSE. The Belgian priest *Georges Lemaitre* first gave us a viable mathematics for an expanding universe. His PREDICTION that the universe could not be stable was soon proven by Hubble and others. *Sir Arthur Eddington* championed Lemaitre's theories in a book called The Expanding Universe. Eddington was a Quaker who said that the believer found arguments for the non-existence of God to be quaint.
· ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring the characteristics we accept--contributed articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, *John Harris." Earlier encyclopedias with scientific and medical content had been compiled by Christians, including *Cassiodorus,* *Hildegarde,* *Isidore of Seville,* *Rhabanus Maurus,* the Dominican *Vincent of Beauvois,* *Johann Heinrich Alsted,* whom Cotton Mather called "the doorway to the sciences," etc.
· OPTICS. *George Berkeley,* idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.
· RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians. The first of these Christians was *Bernhard Riemann* who had developed the mathematics of Riemannian Space, which Einstein found could explain the curvature of space. The other was *James Clerk Maxwell* whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics. Einstein's work was to some measure forced by the famous Michelson-Morely measurements of the speed of light which showed that the speed of light is an absolute. Einstein sought and found the explanation. *Edward William Morley* was the Christian half of that experimental duo. Einstein was not a Christian, but he was convinced by science of the reality of a higher power/creator/God.
· Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. His science sprang directly from his faith. All of his writings show the imprint of Christianity. As a young man, newly converted to Christ, he struggled with faith because the science of the day contained so much which was contrary to his belief. He therefore determined that every fact must be clearly established and tested, in which case he felt certain that it would prove compatible with scripture since both had the same author.
· John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry.
· Michael Faraday: 1791-1869 English Chemist, Discovered Benzene, electromagnetic induction, lines of force, relationship between polarized light and magnetic fields. Strong believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture. Deacon and elder in his church.
"Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and since it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope."
· George Washington Carver, with his work on peanuts and sweet potatoes was a great pioneer in Chemurgy (the branch of chemistry which focuses on the industrial use of organic materials). His faith has been well-documented.
· John Ambrose Fleming, who leaned to the evangelical wing of the Church of England, was not only a Christian, but a first-rate pioneer in electronics, inventor of various items, including a "bridge" and electron tubes which were essential to the development of the field.
· Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic priest and abbott, first discovered the laws of genetics with his now famous studies of the garden pea. His work lay in obscurity for many years before being rediscovered. Mendel did not accept Darwin's theory, because his own discoveries in genetics showed that creatures tend to revert to kind.
· Nels Steno who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology. The minister *Adam Sedgewick* discovered and named the Cambrian.
· Louis Agassiz was a prominent voice in promulgating ice-age theory, which he convincingly proved. By his comparison of fossil fish and studies of living fish, he was one of the great founders of icthyology. He was strongly creationist in his views. He was strongly creationist.
· Louis Pasteur,* a Christian, developed the germ theory of disease and CLAIMED that microbes transmit many diseases. This claim has been thoroughly proven. The doctor who first applied Pasteur's theories to the operating room was the Quaker Joseph Lister.
· James Young Simpson* is but one of several Christian doctors who made significant advances in gynecology.
FAMOUS CHRISTIAN/JEWISH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS CURRENTLY
· Michael Polanyi, held the chair in physical chemistry and social sciences at Manchester University, was one of the 20th century’s great scientific philosophers, and disturbed the ivied halls of academia by declaring in 1958: “The book of Genesis and its great pictorial illustrations, like the frescoes of Michelangelo, remain a far more intelligent account of the nature and origin of the universe than the representation of the world as a chance collocation of atoms.”
· John Suppe, noted professor of geology at Princeton University and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
· OWEN GINGERICH, Professor of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University, Massachusetts
In his lecture, "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?" he explains why he believes that a scientist can contribute effectively while holding a belief in a purposefully designed universe.
”For me the goal is to achieve a coherent understanding of a universe that includes self-consciousness and self-contemplative beings - an understanding that is far from complete, yet one in which we do not merely analyze the sound waves but in which we can also hear the music. There are still great unanswered questions, of eschatology and theodicy, but a consistent view of the universe can include both the personal God who has communicated to humankind as well as the superintelligent Creator of an astonishingly fine-tuned and fit physical universe. Through the eyes of faith, physics tells us something after all about the Creator of the universe.” from Science & Christian Belief Vol. 13, No 1, April 2000
· Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania in his book Darwin's Black Box, explains that the complexity of the chemical activity at a molecular level, even in the functioning of one part of the body, such as the eye, points to intelligent design rather than evolution.
· Dr. Walter L. Bradley, Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, He has received two teaching awards, one national and five local research awards, and from 1989-1993 served as the head of the department. He has received over $3,000,000 in research grants and contracts resulting in the publication of 80+ technical articles. He has been honored for his technical contributions by being elected a Fellow of the American Society for Materials.
”The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it”. from the article “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”
· D. Russell Humphreys, Award-winning physicist, involved in physics research and development in geophysics, optics, nuclear physics, high energy physics, electricity, magnetism, and theoretical physics, B.S. in Physics from Duke University, Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University (dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions), Former researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico starting in 1979 -- in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project, Helped design particle accelerators used in fusion energy and Strategic Defense research, Co-inventor of laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches, much more online at: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/humphreys-dr.html
· Albert Einstein-said (not a Christian, but a believer in an intelligent designer), when commenting about the universe: "God doesn't play dice", and he also said "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly-insignificant reflection." ... Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, (1974), Bonanza Books, New York, page 40.
Albert Einstein believed there was no inseparable contradictions between God and science, as reported in an essay he wrote Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? Christian Unitarian Register 127, (June, 1948) pages 19, 20.
· Dr. Francis Collins is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
· Richard Bube (1927-) was the chairman of the Department of Materials Science at Stanford University for many years and currently teaches a second year undergraduate course at Stanford entitled "Issues in Science and Christianity”.
· Gerald L. Schroeder holds a Ph.D. in applied physics from MIT. He wrote “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible.”
· Dr. Nathan Aviezer is author of the book "In the Beginning" . He received his doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, and held a research position at the IBM Watson REsearch Center, New York. He now lives in Israel where he joined Bar-Ilan University as Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Physics Department. He is a fellow in the American Physical Society.
· Martin Rees at Cambridge: "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
· John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister. "I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."
· U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory.
· Phillip Johnson has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, for 26 years. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Johnson is the author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.
· George T. Javor, Ph.D. in biochemistry from Columbia University, New York, U.S.A., B.S. in chemistry from Brown University, Author of over 40 technical papers and abstracts, Professor of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, California
· C. Everett Koop, Former Surgeon General of the United States of America, Former editor of The Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Recipient of at least 8 honorary degrees stemming from his surgical expertise, Member of more than a dozen medical societies worldwide, Former president of the Surgical section of the American Academy of Pediatric Surgery, Former Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
· UCLA Berkeley Professor Phillip Johnson-considers the weakness of evolution's scientific standing, where "an honest appraisal of the evidence would sweep evolution convincingly into the dustbin of history".
· Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of Technology.
· Leonid Korochkin, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
· Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Steve Austin, from the Institute for Creation Research
· Patrick Glynn, Ph.D. Harvard University, former special assistant to the director of arms control in the Reagan Administration and once a confirmed philosophical atheist, believes the Universe was programmed toward the creation of life. His book:-God, The Evidence
· Dr. Ben Carson, one of the top neurosurgeons in the world.
· Dr. Denis Alexander, head of the T-Cell Laboratory in the Dept. of Immunology, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge
· Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. and M.S. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University, B.S. in physics and math from the University of Puerto Rico, Author of over 45 papers and over 90 conference papers and technical reports
· Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958), Former professor of biomechanics and physiology at California State University (1968-1994), Professor Emeritus at California State University (1994-Present)
· Charles McCombs, Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, UCLA, 20 chemical patents over 21 years
· Andrew McIntosh, D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales (1998), Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the Cranfield Institute of Technology (1981), Author of over 80 research papers, Contributor to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory
· Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. and M.S. from the University of Minnesota (1950, 1948), Former faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57), Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970)
· Gary E. Parker, Creationist (former Evolutionist professor and textbook author), Ed.D. from Ball State University in biology with a cognate in geology and paleontology
· Ariel A. Roth (SDA), Ph.D. and M.S. in biology from the University of Michigan, U.S.A., Former professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A., Former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda
· Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
· Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney
· Timothy G. Standish (SDA), Ph.D. in environmental biology and public policy from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.
· Stephen Taylor, Ph.D. and M.Eng. in electrical engineering from the University of Liverpool, author of over 80 scientific articles, Reviewer for the journals IEE Electronic Letters, Solid State Electronics, Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics Letters, Senior lecturer in electrical engineering at the University of Liverpool
· Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science
· Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology in the Department of Geosciences in the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1983. Professor Margulis says that history will judge neo Darwinism as "a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo Saxon (English nationality or descent) biology"
· Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town, B.S. (hons) cum laude and M.S. in zoology from the University of Stellenbosch, Professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa
· Jeremy L. Walter, M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A., National Science Foundation Fellowship recipient (1975), Head of the Engineering Analysis and Design Department, Applied Research Laboratory (Energy Science and Power Systems Division), Pennsylvania State University
· Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941), Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964), F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc., Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford, Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages, NATO three-star general, deceased
· Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. and M.A. in geology from Harvard University, B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago, Former student of Professor Stephen Jay Gould
· Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University, M.S. in Physics from Clemson University, Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals
· Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
· Steven A. Austin, Geologist, Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University, Consulting geologist for government and industry, Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review
· Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. from Hardin-Simmons University (1950), Former research physicist at Duke University (1942-45), M.S. degree from Brown University (1936) while studying under the famous physicist R.B. Lindsay, Director of many important research projects on terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric physics, Published various scientific papers and textbooks, Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly
· Edward A. Boudreaux , Ph.D. and M.S. in chemistry from Tulane University, Author or co-author of four technical books regarding inorganic chemistry, Author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana
· Arthur V. Chadwick (SDA), Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Miami (1969), Professor of Biology and Geology at Southwestern Adventist College, Keene, Texas
· Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University, Post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany, Professor of Physics at Bluefield College
· John M. Cimbala, Ph.D. and M.S. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, U.S.A., Author of numerous research papers regarding fluid dynamics, Visiting senior research scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center, Recipient of the George W. Atherton Award for Excellence in Teaching, Pennsylvania State University, 1997, Professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University
· Ben Clausen (SDA?), Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Research scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California
· Melvin Alonzo Cook, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale University (1937), Nobel Prize nominee (Nitro Nobel Gold Medalist, Swedish Academy, Stockholm (1969), Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah (1947-70), E.V. Murphree Gold Medalist Award, American Chemical Society (1968), Loomis Award from Yale University (1937)
· Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D. and M.A. in biology from Harvard University (1965, 1959)
· Donald B. DeYoung, Physicist, specializing in solid-state and nuclear science, as well as astronomy, Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University, Published articles in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics, and Creation Research Society Quarterly
· Dwain L. Ford (SDA), Ph.D. in chemistry from Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.A., Recipient of three National Science Foundation fellowships, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Andrews University
· Robert V. Gentry, M.S. in Physics from University of Florida, Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos, Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission, Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.
· Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953), B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949)
· D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of London, Royal Society of Chemistry fellow, Institute of Biology fellow, Emeritus professor of steroid biochemistry at the University of London, U.K.
· Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Western Australia, B.S. (honors) in chemistry from the University of Western Australia, Author of 30 research papers, Holds 4 patents, Elected fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
· Edmond W. Holroyd, Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of New York at Albany, Research physical scientist from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado
· "At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.
· Stephen M. Barr is Associate Professor of Physics at the Bartol Institute, University of Delaware.
· Steve Austin (Ph.D. in geology, Pennsylvania State University)
· John Baumgardner (Ph.D. in geophysics and space science, University of California at Los Angeles)
· Eugene Chaffin (Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Oklahoma State University)
· Don DeYoung (Ph.D. in physics, Iowa State University)
· Russell Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics, Louisiana State University)
· Andrew Snelling (Ph.D. in geology, University of Sydney)
· Larry Vardiman (Ph.D. in atmospheric science, Colorado State University)
THE BELOW SCIENTISTS CAME BEFORE DARWIN BUT HAVE VERY GOOD QUOTES.
· Johannes Kepler: 1571-1630 German Astronomer, The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory,
"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
· Blaise Pascal: 1623-1662 French Mathemetician, "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ." (Pensees)?
· Newton Isaac: 1642-1727 (born Dec 25) wrote a million words of theology.
The solar system itself could not have been produced by blind chance or fortuitous causes but only by a cause "very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."
“Were all the planets as swift as Mercury or as slow as Saturn or his satellites [i.e. its moons]; or were the several velocities otherwise much greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the distances from the centers about which they move been greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the quantity of matter in the sun or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth (and by consequence their gravitating power) been greater or less than it is; [then, in any of these cases,] the primary planets could not have revolved about the sun nor the secondary ones about Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, in concentric circles as they do, but would have moved in hyperbolas or parabolas or in ellipses very eccentric. To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets and the gravitating powers resulting from thence.... And to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies, [such a design] argues that cause to be, not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry. [Letters to Richard Bentley, 1]
This is by NO means a complete list. It's only the tip of the iceberg :).
"It's pretty straightforward to any objective observer. I provided actual scientific articles. You didn't."
Are you blind? I provided links to very technical scientific articles on dating the earth for example and I can provide MANY MANY more. But, you refuse to even watch 1 video by a former virulent atheist and evolutionist, Dr. Veith who loved to destroy creationists until he looked at the actual evidence. Now he's a creationist.
Here are a couple peer reviewed creationist journals where you can find many articles.
CRS Quarterly
Answers Research Journal (ARJ)
Some others are listed here (but it also includes journals for theology, archaeology, and others for different ages).
http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
Interesting that you studied geology at LLU...I stand corrected in my assumption and I apologize. But, you still didn't learn to identify logical fallacies or assumptions very well or use consistant standards or understand what observable evidence actually is. Our conversation above proves that. YOU talk about reading "actual scientific evidence". I'm sorry, but what you call evidence is nothing but speculation as far as supporting evolution. I've seen MASSIVE amounts of it..and it's all fancy and looks pretty and clean. I'll agree. But, that does NOT make it scientific. OBSERVATION OF THE ACTUAL MAJOR CLAIMS OF EVOLUTION IS REQUIRED. That standard is set in concrete and is IMMMOVABLE. What you are impressed with has NOTHING to do with observable evidence of Darwin's major claims.
"You'll have to excuse me if your arguments fall on deaf and jaded ears. I've already heard them from professors and then found out they were wrong. Catagorically. Emperically. They got the geology mostly right, thank God, but man, if you can't get convincing evidence from the very people that should have this stuff DOWN, then what hope does one have as a layperson?"
Laymen have OFTEN gotten things right when professors got them wrong. Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers are just two of MANY examples. I don't know when you studied, but you REALLY need to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and quite a bit on the philosophy of science to understand the assumptions that your faith is resting on. If you studied long ago at LLU...or you didn't study about the philosophy of science and that not just evolution, but even science rests on certain faith assumptions/axioms (but science has infinitely less faith than evolution)...you have not received a complete education.
"Now do with that what you will. I don't normally talk this much about myself online, frankly, you are being blessed. Hopefully some other people on this Forum will read my experience and LEARN from it. Creationist positions are rubbish, scientifically, logically, and from any objective measure of "truth"."
Thanks for sharing. But, I know of MANY who went the opposite direction and they did it because of studying the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in PRIMARY RESEARCH done by themselves. I also know that evolution is absolutely incompetent at providing any observable evidence of it's major claims. YOu may be impressed by rhetoric and fancy speculation prettied up by charts and graphs and assumptions and speculations and powerpoints and what nots. All of that doesn't add up to a hill of beans scientifically unless you have ACTUAL OBSERVABLE evidence of macro-evolution HAPPENING. Use bacteria if you wish. The dating methods also are impossible to verify unless you recently discovered a 5 million year old witness who is able to give you first hand witness of something that is that age that you can test the theories by.
Bryan
I asked, quite specifically for what you claimed to have "ad infinitum", specifically proof that:
"within 20 years of the publication of Origin of Species almost NO scientists were creationists"
....was not true. Which was what you claimed to have. Now maybe I missed it somewhere in that list of non-contextualized quotes, but most likely not.
Do you have the proof against the statement I made, or do you not? I am afraid that you're the one that made the claim. The kind of thing I am looking for is some evidence that within 20 years after Origin of Species that a preponderance of scientists were still creationists. Not whether one can provide a small sample of unverified quotes. I could have done that myself.
NUMEROUS scientists in the list above lived LONG after Origin of species and were creationists. I included a number of quotes in that list from explicit creationists, 2 articles from creationists and quotes from others who said evolution doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on...all of whom count. If you can't read very well....well, don't know what else I can do. You have a serious lack of ability to read accurately, which is ESPECIALLY true if you were trained at LLU. You have used mountains of outright falsehoods and straw man fallacies in describing creationist scientists.
Bryan
"Laymen have OFTEN gotten things right when professors got them wrong."
I see. Well your best creationist professors certainly did, I guess I can't argue with that logic. I'm not a layman and I can certainly see it.
Just for your future argumentation, the sources
answersingenesis
amazingdiscoveries
creationscience
and so on do not constitute any form of "technical scientific article" whatsoever. Frankly there is better peer-review in wikipedia than in those sites.
A "technical scientific article" can be found in the likes of science daily (science news from peer reviewed journals), newscientist.com, Nature, and/or peer reviewed articles from Universities.
I do not go looking for creationismiswacked.com or some such site. You shouldn't either.
Bissell's "arguments" would disallow our recognition that that Indo-European languages evolved from one language. I wrote a blogpost about it here:
http://behefails.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/behe-and-language-origination/
I really do not wish to get into the endless canards of Bissell's "study" (which apparently does not differentiate between honest peer-review and "peer review" by people who signed statements that they would not simply follow the evidence), which apparently gave him no knowledge of how "historical science" is successfully accomplished. So I will let it go with the analogy and the link. There is no point in engaging those who deny the "rules of evidence" used in science and in the courtroom when the conclusions do not suit their set beliefs.
The fact is that language evolution was one of the analogies that Darwin used to indicate how a "historical science" can be properly done, except when special pleading and endless excuses are made in order to deny the kinds of inferences routinely accomplished in science and also in court cases. In both biological and in linguistic evolution cause and effect are matched up with the evidence, while in ID and in other creastionism there are no causal constraints allowed, hence no ability to match up cause and effect. That is why it is not, and cannot be (as presently configured), science.
Glen Davidson
Glen
And by your line of reasoning neither can evolution. Neither
are falsifiable. Neither are reproducable. Both are belief systems. Tom
Interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123062/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Developing scientific evidence that not only human evolution occurs, but that we are actively still evolving in real time to such things as malaria, and even geographic/population patterns. Not saying this is the final answer, of course, as the scientific debate goes on....as it should. We want peer review to work out the facts from the fiction.
It just keeps coming. The scientific freight train of knowledge chips away at creationism every....single.....day.
It is as I suspected. I started digging into the quotes that Bryan provided, mainly looking to see if I could readily verify the context of the quotes to see if someone (not Bryan necessarily) had messed with the quote, as it were, or taken it out of context.
The first one I noticed that was certainly of dubious merit was Stephen Hawkings quote. It is widely known that he is a Deist or an Agnostic at most. He states in A Brief History of Time that "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122). Hardly a literalist version of the bible, much less a creationist one.
An good analysis of Hoyle can be found here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/33287.html
In short, his views were not a replacement of Darwinian evolution, they were a modification.
Noam Chomsky commented on his quotes here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1643
He is quite clear that he is an evolutionist (as if it were even in doubt). In addition, here: http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky151105.htm he puts forth an even more interesting creationist idea:
Malignant Design.
"Unlike intelligent design, for which the evidence is zero, malignant design has tons of empirical evidence, much more than Darwinian evolution, by some criteria: the world's cruelty." - Noam Chomsky
Ouch.
Don't even get me started on Dawkins being included. A brilliant and notable evolutionist and the writer of "The God Delusion". That he is included as having any tiny speck of agreeing with Creationist thought at ALL, is laughable in extreme. It is beyond absurd. In fact, he would laugh his butt off that one even tried. If you want to claim the current most notable atheist in the world in your midst, well, okay. I am sure God must be shocked.
Dawkins eats creationists for breakfast. You chose a single quote out of a whole host of books that defy everything you believe, up to and including God. Awesome.
I also noticed that included in the list of apparently esteemed scientists was the representative of notorious creationists such as Hugh Ross and Ariel Roth. This is rather like getting excited because you've found Catholics in the Vatican.
All in all, I have to keep coming back to the point that creationists will STRETTTTTTCH to include literally anyone in their midst or the tiniest quote they can find to gain some smidgen of scientific credibility. It is all rather amusing.
Bissell's "arguments" would disallow our recognition that that Indo-European languages evolved from one language.
Glen Davidson
Do evolutionists have nothing but straw men? I did not make that argument at ALL. OF COURSE languages can develop from other languages. You didn't know that before? As my math professor used to put it, "that's obvious to the most casual observer." I live in Korean and interestingly it has many similarities to Turkish for example. I and my colleague have talked quite a bit about this. He actually wrote/published an article on this topic which I've asked him to bring to church so I can copy it and share it.
"There is no point in engaging those who deny the "rules of evidence" used in science and in the courtroom when the conclusions do not suit their set beliefs."
This statement applies solidly to most evolutionists. I have asked evolutionists for decades to provide the same type of evidence they demand of creationists (and that creationists can often provide). They have failed completely in every case.
"In both biological and in linguistic evolution cause and effect are matched up with the evidence, while in ID and in other creastionism there are no causal constraints allowed, hence no ability to match up cause and effect. That is why it is not, and cannot be (as presently configured), science."
This is complete fiction, esp. in regard to Bible science, but also in regard to creation/flood science. There is MUCH matching of cause and effect evidence in creation/flood sciencescience. One example is below regarding the Grand Canyon and predictions by Dr. Brown that resulted in finding evidence of 2 large ancient lakes above the Canyon.
"Interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123062/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Developing scientific evidence that not only human evolution occurs, but that we are actively still evolving in real time to such things as malaria, and even geographic/population patterns. Not saying this is the final answer, of course, as the scientific debate goes on....as it should. We want peer review to work out the facts from the fiction.
It just keeps coming. The scientific freight train of knowledge chips away at creationism every....single.....day.
--
like most evolutionists you are not able to distinguish between proof for micro-evolution and proof for macro-evolution. I read the entire article above. There are soo many assumptions that even other evolutionists point out. But, even before that, nothing in that article that I saw went beyond proof for creationist micro-evolution. NOTHING. Your freight train is a mythological illusion and propaganda that your gurus keep on feeding you since they can't give any observable proof of macro-evolution. They feed you stuff that is actually more and more proof for adaptation/micro-evolution...a theory published by a creationist in the 1930s that Darwin stole and perverted into faith based macro-evolution.
"Just for your future argumentation, the sources
answersingenesis, amazingdiscoveries, creationscience
and so on do not constitute any form of "technical scientific article" whatsoever. Frankly there is better peer-review in wikipedia than in those sites.
A "technical scientific article" can be found in the likes of science daily (science news from peer reviewed journals), newscientist.com, Nature, and/or peer reviewed articles from Universities.
I do not go looking for creationismiswacked.com or some such site. You shouldn't either."
This is full blown propaganda, 100% fraud and apriori thinking. Those 3 sites (and MANY others) are EVERY BIT as scientific as anything you've posted and every bit as scientific as newscientist, nature and others. Of course they will have errors and need some corrections and not all hypothesis will be correct. You don't demand that of evolution sites and yet you do of creationist sites. Debunking a couple articles doesn't even begin to prove that all articles are wrong (and the articles you debunked could debunk your debunking as well as debunking articles you have written and published without much trouble at all). You have so far refused to even investigate the last 2 and have absolutely no qualifications to judge them because of that. If I were to follow the principle you are using (prove to me your theory by getting peer reviewed articles that are biased for my side), I would demand that you prove evolution true by giving me peer reviewed articles ONLY from creation science journals. DO you understand the term "double standard". Do you understand how insanely ignorant it is for you to state the above without having investigated anything? You wouldn't be able to prove ANYTHING to me if I followed your standards. But, I haven't made that ludicrous and irrational demand. I'm OK with you providing observable evidence from ANY peer reviewed magazine, knowledgeable scientist or something like that. You have not produced even one example of macro-evolution. All your examples so far fit under micro-evolution and bolster creation theory NOT evolution.
Dr. Brown has a ph.d. from MIT. He has done primary research for himself (which I'm beginning to doubt you have ever done). He made a scientific hypothesis that if the Grand Canyon was made in a short time by a flood, there should have been major lake(s) above it to supply the gigantic amounts of water necessary to do that. He hypothesized their location and many other things. Then he went searching for them and found the evidence of ancient large lakes existing in the places he had predicted and much more. Start with this page for details of the prediction and confirmations (more technical details are in the footnotes if you wish to go into deeper science):
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon5.html)
You can get a larger view by starting here and looking at all pages:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon.html
We also have observable evidence of major canyons being made in a short time by lots of water. Dr. Brown has 100% faithfully followed the scientific method and methodology and he most certainly DID make a major prediction that was 100% falsifiable (something you and evolutionists immorally say is never possible for creationists to do) and it was confirmed. This is just one of MANY 100% legitimate scientific predictions that Dr. Brown made and there are many 1000s if not millions of others by creation scientists. And we have OBSERVABLE evidence that large amounts of water can make canyons in a short time. You don't have ANY observable evidence of macro-evolution actually happening, not even in bacteria which should be a piece of cake if Darwinian evolution were really true.
Dr. Veith was a hardcore evolutionist. He got his degrees from a secular university. He has much published research. Here's just a PARTIAL list:
Publications:
Veith, W.J. 1974. Reproductive Biology of Chamaeleo pumilus pumilus with special reference to the role of the Corpus Luteum and Progesterone. Zool. Afr. 9: 161 -183
Veith, W.J. 1975. Functions of the Corpora Lutea and Progesterone in the ovoviviparous lizard Chamaeleo pumilus pumilus. S.Afr.J.Sci. 71(2): 57
Veith, W.J. 1979. Reproduction in the live-bearing teleost Clinus superciliosus. S.Afr.J.Zool. 14 (4): 208 - 211
Veith, W.J. 1979. The chemical composition of the Follicular Fluid of the Viviparous Teleost Clinus superciliosus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 63A: 37 - 40
Veith, W.J. 1980. Viviparity and Embrionic Adaptations in the Teleost Clinus superciliosus. Can.Jnl.Zool. 58(1):1-12
Veith, W.J. and S.R. Malecha 1983. Histological Study of the Distribution of Lipids, 3a- and 3ß-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase in the Androgenic Gland of the Cultured Prawn, Macrobachium rosenbergii (de Man) (Crustacea: Decapoda).S. Afr.J.Sci. 79: 84-85
Cornish, D.A. and W.J. Veith. 1986. Embryonic adaptations in the teleost Clinus dorsalis. S.Afr.J.Zool. 21(1): 79-84
Veith, W.J. and D.A. Cornish. 1986. Ovarian adaptation in the viviparous teleosts Clinus superciliosus and Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes : Clinidae). S.Afr.J.Zool. 21 (4) 343-347
Cornish, D.A. and W.J. Veith. 1987. The chemical composition of the follicular fluid of the Teleost Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes Clinidae). Comp.Biochem.Physiol. 88A, (4) 599-602
Cornish, D.A. and W.J. Veith. 1989 Scanning electron microscopy of embryonic epidermal adaptations in Clinus dorsalis (Perciformes:Clinidae). Proc. Electron. Microsc. Soc. South. Afr. 19:119-120.
Veith, W.J. 1993. Diet and Health. New Scientific Perspectives (1st edition). SPA Publishers, South Africa,
Brand, T.S., Veith, W.J., Franck, Johnson, Q. (1995). Verband tussen ruproteieniname en voorkoms van krombeen by ramlammers. Elsenburg Joernaal 2 :18-21
Akkers, T.R., Melo, Y.C., and W.J. Veith 1996. Gonad development and spawning frequency of the South African pilchard Sardinops sagax during the 1993-1994 spawning season. South Afr. Journl. of Mar. Sci. 183-195.
Veith, W.J. 1996. Ernärung neu entdecken. Der Einfluß der Ernärung auf unsere gesundheit. Wissenschafliche erkentnisse. Wissenshafliche Verlagsgesllschaft mbh, Stuttgart.
Veith W.J. 1997 Je einfacher - desto gesünder. Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung 137 Jahrgang Nr 4; 23/1/1997
Manie T., Khan, S., Brözel, V.S., Veith, W.J. and Gouws, P.A. 1998. Antimicrobial resistance of bacteria isolated from slaughtered and retail chicken in South Africa. Letters to Applied Microbiology. 26:253-258.
Veith W.J. 1998. Diet and Health, Scientific perspectives. 2nd Edition. CRC Press, New York, London and Medpharm Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany.
Manie T., Brözel, V.S., Veith, W.J., Gouws, P.A. 1999. Antimicrobial resistance of bacterial flora associated with bovine products in South Africa. Journal of Food Protection. 62(6):615-618.
Brand, T.S, Johnson, Q., Frank, F., Veith, W.J., Conradie, R. Hough, F.S. 1999. The influence of dietary crude protein intake on bone and mineral metabolism in sheep. SA Veterinary Journal. 70 (1):9-13.
Manie T., Brözel, V.J., Veith, W.J., Gouws, P.A. 2001. Antimicrobial resistance of bacterial flora associated with pork products in South Africa. SA J Sci. (Submitted)
Q. Johnson, W.J. Veith, and J. Aalbers. 1999. The effect of dietary protein on the mineral status of the vervet monkey with special reference to the impact of milk solids on calcium excretion. J Med. Primatology. 28:334-343
Q. Johnson, W.J. Veith, and T. Mouton. 2001. The impact of dietary protein intake on serum biochemical and haematological profiles in vervet monkeys. J. Med. Primatology 30: (In press)
By the way, the person who edited the layman's article on dating that I wrote has is extremely qualified in geology and is a creation scientist (http://www.roac.nl/roac/sci-dept.phtml?st=vanderweijden). Her dissertation focused on the absorption and incorporation of heavy metals on/in calcite.
Research Experience
Snellius II expedition Indonesia, Weathering of granites, cadmium interactions with calcite, polonium in sediments (University Utrecht), Radon project (Florida State University), recovery of metals from aqueous waste streams, waste characterization and processing, magnesium recycling (Delft University of Technology). Precipitation of metals via bioreduction (Wageningen University).
Selected Publications
"Molybdenum removal and recovery from wastewater produced by a styrene monomer plant", P.L.J. Swinkels, R.D. van der Weijden, A.N. Ajah, Y.Arifin, H.L. Loe, M. H. Manik, I.Siriski, and M.A. Reuter. Minerals Engineering, 17(2), pp. 205-215, 2004.
"Conditions for Production of Copper Powder in a Pipe Reactor", R.D. van der Weijden, W.F.C. van Wageningen and M.A. Reuter, Proceedings XXII International Mineral Processing Congress, Cape Town Sept 29th – Oct 23rd. Chief Eds. L. Lorenzen and D.J. Bradshaw, p. 1300-1306, ISBN: 0-958-46092-2, 2003.
"Copper recovery from copper(II) sulfate solutions by reduction with carbohydrates", R.D. van der Weijden, J. Mahabir, A. Abbadi, and M.A. Reuter, Hydrometallurgy, 64, 131-146, 2002.
"The effect of carbonation on the leaching of copper and molybdenum from municipal solid wast incinerator bottom ash", J.A. Meima, R.D. van der Weijden, T.T. Eighmy and R.N.J. Comans, Applied Geochemistry, 2002.
"Sorption and sorption reversibility of Cd on calcite in the presence of phosphate and sulfate", R.D. van der Weijden, J.A. Meima and R.N.J. Comans, Marine Chemistry, 57, 119-132, 1997.
There are thousands of Ph.D. and M.S. scientists around the world (and the number keeps growing) who believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old, as the Bible teaches. It is simply false to say that creation scientists do not have reputable degrees, do not do real scientific research and do not publish in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Visit our creation scientist section to read about a few of them, past and present.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
One last post for today since I have many other things to do.
Regarding peer reviewed published articles by creationists, there are thousands and a few are listed below. I hope, but am not very optimistic that Madden or other evolutionists here will admit that their allegations are false. Madden has habitually misrepresented creationists and creation theory nonstop without one admission of the most obvious of false allegations and logical fallacies(it's quite doubtful given his posts here that there is any truth to his accusation that his teachers at LLU lied). But, there are some evolutionists who do have integrity. Here's one:
"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do. {Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities." Paul Toumey,Evolutionist. From his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.
I gave you several publications by just 2 creationists above. It is an absolute fraud and hoax that creationists don't publish peer reviewed articles. In addition, here is an article with one of MANY cases where evolutionists are guilty of poor quality research (some evolutionists do good quality research, although none of it provides observable evidence of macro-evolution, but anyway, we should respect them for their hard work. But, there are many cases like this on the evolution side with scientists getting debunked all the time and caught using underhanded tactics such as the Piltdown man hoax):
http://ncseweb.org/cej/1/2/evidence-quality-creation-science-research
Here's a good answer from Dr. Russel Humphreys on whether creation scientists publish in secular journals:
Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:
---
‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.
‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.
‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!
‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’
----
By the way, I live in Korea and there are many hundreds of top professors here that are also Christians and creationists according to the creationist society here. Also, I work part time for two of the top universities in Korea and my job involves editing articles by professional scientists and doctors to be published in peer reviewed journals. I KNOW what that entails. Just last year, Korean doctors that I teach English to won the #1 prize in an international cochlear conference in Turkey. I am just dashing off answers here due to a serious lack of time and shouldn’t even be doing that. Went to bed at 5am last night in order to do so. I have also published things myself and done presentations at international conferences and if I didn’t have a ton of debt I could do a lot more.
AIG states honestly:
"There are thousands of Ph.D. and M.S. scientists around the world (and the number keeps growing) who believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old. It is simply false to say that creation scientists do not have reputable degrees, do not do real scientific research and do not publish in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Visit our creation scientist section to read about a few of them, past and present."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
If you go to this site, it lists numerous creationist scientists with many publications (some over 100 published articles) in journals both biased for creation and biased for evolution. Go to the individual scientists home pages and you will find some of them for free and usually links to the others that can be accessed if you wish to pay the journal for access. More and more scientists are agreeing with these quotes:
Luther D. Sunderland,
“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled, are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries.” Luther D. Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems” (4th ed.), Master Books: Santee (California), 1988 p:7-8
Dr T.N. Tahmisian - physiologist (The Atomic Energy Commission, USA)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Quoted by N.J. Mitchell in the book "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon Pub: UK, 1983 [title page]
Here are just a few peer reviewed articles by creationists that I found quickly. Technical articles are too long to post here (I’ve already posted things that were too long. So, see the links if you want to see referenced articles and check the ones I listed in the previous message:
Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano by Dr. Stephen Austin
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
Dr. Patrick H. Young
Creationist Chemist and Materials Scientist(USA)
Biography
Dr Young received a Ph.D. in chemistry from Ohio University in 1984. After graduation he initiated an in-depth research program on the study of lyotropic liquid crystals where he received U. S. patent as co-inventor of a Kevlarâ polymer and process modification improving critical properties in high performance composites.
Since 1988, Dr. Young has been active in the research and development of Mylarâ film products for capacitor and thermal transfer media applications. Some of these products include; using MIE scattering theory to develop a polyester film material useful in the manufacture of photoresists, a copolymer film composition useful in flyback transformers and a high dielectric strength polyester film for capacitors that resulted in a U.S. Patent.
Dr. Young’s Christian background has also led him to do extensive studies on the subject of creation. His current interest involves the study of the time domain and how quantum theory and/or multidimensional string theories may be used to explain the Genesis account.
Selected Publications
· The Characterization of High Performance Fibers using Infrared Microscopy. Spectrocopy 3(9) 1988.
· Coated Films for A.C. Film foil Capacitors. Paper given at the Capacitor and Resistor Technology Symposium 1997.
· New Surface Topographies for PET Film Capacitors. Paper given at the Capacitor and Resistor Technology Symposium 1999.
· Intracavity Enhancement of Raman Peaks inside the Cavity of a Dye LASER, Spectroscopy Letters 16(6):471–478, 1983.
· The Identification of Dropouts in Magnetic Media Using Infrared Reflectance Microspectroscopy, Spectroscopy Letters 23(5):679–698, 1990.
· Developments in Video and DAT Dropout Analysis. Paper given at the International Tape Association Meeting 1989.
D. Russell Humphreys
§ Creationist, Award-winning physicist, involved in physics research and development in geophysics, optics, nuclear physics, high energy physics, electricity, magnetism, and theoretical physics
§ B.S. in Physics from Duke University
§ Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University (dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions)
§ Publications include:
§ “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments,” Review of Scientific Instruments 63 (October 1992) No. 10.
§ “Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1-6, October, 1990.
§ Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets," JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).
§ “Progress Toward a Superconducting Opening Switch,” Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279-282.
§ “Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch,” Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, June 29 - August 1, 1987.
§ “Rimfire: A Six Megavolt Laser-Triggered Gas-Filled Switch for PBFA-II,” Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985, pp. 262-269.
§ “PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program,” Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985.
§ “Uranium Logging with Prompt Fission Neutrons,” International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34 (1983) 261-268.
§ “Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS-28 (1981) 1691-1695.
§ “Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium,” 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3-5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.
§ Wide-range multi-channel analog switch," Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121 (1974) 505-508.
§ “The 1/g Velocity Dependence of Nucleon-Nucleus Optical Potentials,” Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.
§ “Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination,” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497-503.
§ “Wide-Range multi-input pulse height recording system,” Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123-1127.
Articles peer reviewed in ID.
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the "no end in view" mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe's argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: "Dembski's attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I'm concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves." Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
In this book Behe develops a critique of the mechanism of natural selection and a positive case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the presence of "irreducibly complex molecular machines" and circuits inside cells. Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).
In this book Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen develop a seminal critique of origin of life studies and develop a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and "low-configurational entropy" of living systems.
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
This is a collection of interdisciplinary essays that addresses the scientific and educational controversy concerning the theory of intelligent design. Accordingly, it was peer-reviewed by a philosopher of science, a rhetorician of science, and a professor in the biological sciences from an Ivy League university. The book contains five scientific articles advancing the case for the theory of intelligent design, the contents of which are summarized below.
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).
Gonzalez and Richards develop a novel case for the theory of intelligent design based on developments in astronomy and planetary science. They show that the conditions necessary to produce a habitable planet are extremely rare and improbable. In addition, they show that the one planet we are aware of that possesses these characteristics is also a planet that has characteristics uniquely adapted to scientific exploration, thus suggesting not simply that the earth is the recipient of the fortunate conditions necessary for life, but that it appears to be uniquely designed for scientific discovery.
William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).
Dembski refines his scientific method of design detection, responds to critics of his previous book (The Design Inference) and shows how his method of design detection applies to the kind of molecular machines analyzed by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985).
Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, provides a comprehensive critique of neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory. In a penultimate chapter, entitled "The Molecular Labyrinth," he also develops a strong positive case for the design hypothesis based on the integrated complexity of molecular biological systems. As a religiously agnostic scientist, Denton emphasizes that this case for design is based upon scientific evidence and the application of standard forms of scientific reasoning. As Denton explains, while the case for design may have religious implications, "it does not depend upon religious premises."
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses
Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).
Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it "expresses both function and sign systems." As such, by Gödel's theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi's seminal essay, Life's Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, "the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness." As he further explained, "As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule." Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, "chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals," and since "mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations," it is "therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans."
John A. Davison, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.
Otto Schindewolf once wrote that evolution postulates "a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way." In this peer-reviewed article from a prestigious Italian biology journal, John A. Davison agrees with Schindewolf. Since "[o]ne can hardly expect to demonstrate a mechanism that simply does not and did not exist," Davison attempts to find new explanations for the origin of convergence among biological forms. Davison contends that "[t]he so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, but simply the expression of the same preformed 'blueprints' by unrelated organisms." While discussing many remarkable examples of "convergent evolution," particularly the marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, Davison's meaning is unmistakable: This evidence "bears, not only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design." Davison clearly implies that this evidence is expected under an intelligent design model, but not under a Neo-Darwinian one.
S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
This article argues for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the Cambrian fauna. Not surprisingly, it created an international firestorm within the scientific community when it was published. (See Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic, WALL STREET JOURNAL, Jan. 28, 2005, as well as the following website by the editor who oversaw the article's peer-review process: http://www.rsternberg.net.) The treatment of the editor who sent Meyer's article out for peer-review is a striking illustration of the sociological obstacles that proponents of intelligent design encounter in publishing articles that explicitly defend the theory of intelligent design.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe's case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.
D. A. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, "roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain" and that the "overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077." Axe concludes that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors' approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of design theorists Michael Behe and William Dembski.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, "Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.
This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and teleological. It looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that's programmed into nature falls within its ambit.
D. A. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
This study published by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute, challenges the widespread idea that high species-to-species variation in the amino-acid sequence of an enzyme implies modest functional constraints. Darwinists commonly assume that such variation indicates low selection pressure at the variable amino acid sites, allowing many mutations with little effect. Axe's research shows that even when mutations are restricted to these sites, they are severely disruptive, implying that proteins are highly specified even at variable sites. According to this work, sequences diverge not because substantial regions are free from functional constraints, but because selection filters most mutations, leaving only the harmless minority. By showing functional constraints to be the rule rather than the exception, it raises the question of whether chance can ever produce sequences that meet these constraints in the first place. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails 'severe sequence constraints'. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.
Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)
In this article appearing in a 1985 technical reference book, mathematician Granville Sewell compares the complexity found in the genetic code of life to that of a computer program. He recognizes that the fundamental problem for evolution is the "problem of novelties" which raises the question "How can natural selection cause new organs to arise and guide their development through the initial stages during which they present no selective advantage"? Sewell then explains how a Darwinist will try to bridge both functional and fossil gaps between biological structures through "a long chain of tiny improvements in his imagination," but notes that "the analogy with software puts his ideas into perspective." Major changes to a species require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Natural selection, a process which is "unable to plan beyond the next tiny mutation" could never produce the complexity of life.
Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE):
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, DDPE Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the "no end in view" mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.
Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells reexamine the phenomenon of homology, the structural identity of parts in distinct species such as the pentadactyl plan of the human hand, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a seal, on which Darwin was willing to rest his entire argument. Nelson and Wells contend that natural selection explains some of the facts of homology but leaves important anomalies (including many so-called molecular sequence homologies) unexplained. They argue that intelligent design explains the origin of homology better than the mechanisms cited by advocates of neo-Darwinism.
Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402. (PDF, 2.33MB)
Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinian (and punctuationalist) evolutionary theory. They argue that the fossil record displays several features--a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content--that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)
Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.
In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or "complex specified information" provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute "an argument from ignorance."
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.
Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life's Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and "low-configurational entropy" of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems, a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.
In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.
Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity, that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe's argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).
This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.
MANY others…just a couple more names to add to the list and this is really not even the tip of the iceberg:
Dr David Menton
Written numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.
· Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
· Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
· Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
· Consulting editor in Histology for 'Stedman's Medical Dictionary', a standard medical reference work
Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D.
Andrew A. Snelling is a geologist, research scientist and technical editor. He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with First Class Honors in 1975. His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) was awarded by The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982 for his research thesis entitled “A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia”.
Dr Raymond Damadian, Pioneer of MRI
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title ‘super-scientist’ but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise.
Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods.
His interest in the idea of MRI began when he was a young professor engaged in active scientific research at the State University of New York. Skeptics sarcastically informed him that to use the then-young technique of nuclear magnetic resonance (see box) in a medical imaging machine would mean rotating the patient at 10,000 revolutions per minute!
He said that ‘theoretical physicists claimed to have done calculations demonstrating that my idea was beyond what the theory of physics would allow.’ This worried and confounded would-be financial backers, but Dr Damadian took it as a challenge for himself as an ‘experimentalist’ to ‘do something the theorists say can‘t be done.’
Today, MRI is a world-famous, multi-billion-dollar technology with more than 4,000 of these complex machines installed around the world. Dr Damadian told Creation magazine of how his company, formed to exploit the legal patent with great potential benefits to many Americans, experienced something extraordinary. Several huge overseas and multinational firms began manufacturing MRI scanners in spite of his patent. Dr Damadian‘s small company was forced to go to court—a jury trial in 1982 found the patent to be valid and in-fringed. He had won!
The happiness, however, was short-lived. For some reason the judge, six weeks after the trial, ‘voided the jury’s verdict and substituted his own.’ Dr Damadian had lost. He says that after his company had spent $2.2 million in legal fees he learned the difficulties of a ‘little fellow’ inventing a BIG product.
Dr Damadian points out that this apparent injustice (shared by the inventors of such things as the laser, tetracycline, the Early Stall Warning device and many more) was even more economically damaging to the US than to himself.
Dr Ian Macreadie
Creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist
Dr Ian Macreadie is a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. He is also adjunct professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Duane Gish, Ph.D.
Creationist Biochemist(USA)
Biography
Dr. Duane Gish is a man who, in addition to his accomplishments as a speaker and writer, is known by many as the foremost creationist debater in the world today. He has held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical College, and The Upjohn Company, where he collaborated with former Nobel Prize winners in various projects.
I see that you didn't understand my conditional statement even tolerably well, Bryan.
The problem with your comprehension of what was written would make attempts at communication with you pointless, even if you understood science and rules of evidence.
Glen Davidson
LOL.
Apparently Bryan supposedly "wins" his arguments with evolutionists by copy and paste. I'm done with the wack-a-mole.
I have appreciated some of Bryan's comments elsewhere but it appears that this topic is raising some serious questions about Bryan's methodology.
In fact, after researching the above copy-and-paste jobs, he's either a secret evolutionist acting like a creationist in order to discredit them or he's not even reading the links that he provides.
For instance, before near the top he writes:
I gave you several publications by just 2 creationists above. It is an absolute fraud and hoax that creationists don't publish peer reviewed articles. In addition, here is an article with one of MANY cases where evolutionists are guilty of poor quality research (some evolutionists do good quality research, although none of it provides observable evidence of macro-evolution, but anyway, we should respect them for their hard work. But, there are many cases like this on the evolution side with scientists getting debunked all the time and caught using underhanded tactics such as the Piltdown man hoax):
http://ncseweb.org/cej/1/2/evidence-quality-creation-science-research
Hilariously, the link takes one straight to an article showing the shoddy "Evidence of the Quality of Creation Science Research." The author writes, "Astonishingly then, a leading creation scientist not only misread the graph, he also failed to check the original sources of the data. That would be bad enough in a naive student but it is poor and unacceptable practice for a trained scholar."
Seriously, click on the link above and see Bryan helping to refute his own argument.
Furthermore, in almost three years of blogging, I always like to look through these lists of "scientists" that creationists, ID-advocates and global warming deniers trot out. The Answering Genesis site that Bryan is also just copying straight from includes this expert in biolo. . .I mean theology and airplane aerodynamics.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/w_curtis.asp
And as someone who has actually attended classes at the University of California, Berkeley, let me make it clear that Philip Johnson WAS a professor in the LAW school, not in any of the science departments and Boalt points out that his ID books were for the "general reader," i.e., the facts are not supportable by actual scholarly research.
What also telling is that while some of the creationists listed above have published in serious journals, almost all those articles have not actually been about creationism. And the books are not from academic presses, which Bryan fails to note. That he lists all these folks, a majority of whom did "sciencey" not "creationist" stuff before they got on the creationist church circuit, reveals a deep misunderstanding. Publishing and publishing on this issue in a community of scholars are two very different things. The last person that Bryan copied, Duane Gish has self-published most of his stuff from his position at the Institute for Creation Research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish
Seriously, that Bryan lists him uncritically just reveals how little he actually understands how research works. It's really incredible to hear what they say about those who critique creationism. Their attacks really are classic ideological projection.
Anyway, Bryan, I believe that the link below would have sufficed rather than clogging up SPECTRUM by almost unreadable, copy-and-pasting straight from a page from the public relations-focused Discovery Institute. Not only is it very poor form to copy an entire webpage into a comment section, but you did it without citing it, which, in addition to getting one source backwards, adds to the dubious nature of "creationist" methodology and has really damaged your credibility.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Focus on quality, not quantity, or you'll be asked to leave this space as we work to raise this blog's conversation standards higher.
Glen,
You straw manned what I wrote/quoted about language. The quotes I listed referred to the development of language from nothing. The lack of understanding was on your side.
Madden,
If you would like to pay my debt off and pay my salary, I'd LOVE to go full time into research and write technical and detailed and all neat and properly documented stuff. I have done so and I enjoy it. I just don't have time for that now. Yet another double standard appears. You can't go even one post (and sometimes hardly a sentence without engaging in logical fallacies. Quoting and citing people is something that professional journal articles are REQUIRED to do unless you've suddenly converted the world to some new dogma that I haven't heard about. Evolutionists cite and cut and paste ALL the time to prove their ideas. If you don't do that, nobody will take you seriously. But, even before all that, the question that you ASKED me to answer was to cite peer reviewed articles by creationists since you falsely claimed that they didn't do any research of that type. I conclusively proved your claim false. Yet you don't have the honesty to admit any of your errors as I predicted. In many cases, evolution indoctrinates people into habitual use of logical fallacies as you have done here and in addition causes them to be so arrogant that they refuse to admit even the most blatant of their errors. This directly violates the principles of science that genuine scientists should be open minded and open to change. You prove once more to me that most evolutionists are unable to be honest about creationists, they cannot follow the standards they set up for creationists themselves and that when consistent standards are used, evolution theory is completely incompetent. There are exceptions to this, but not many. I can respect those who are honest and don't use logical fallacies even if they disagree with me. I can even learn from them...but most are very dishonest and experts at using logical fallacies and ridicule and that's about it when it comes to debates with them.
God gave you an incredible brain and you could be so much more useful in this world and for God if you used it to it's full potential. Sadly you have been indoctrinated to waste a lot of it's potential. And that doesn't mean you have to agree with me on everything...but if you used that brain correctly, you would see the logical fallacies that I have pointed out long before I pointed them out. You are a victim of indoctrination of evolution. I feel sad for people who have been locked into that intellectual prison and slavery that doesn't allow any truly scientific inquiry into rival theories in major areas.
Bryan
Hi All,
One more MAJOR problem for evolution theory just quickly that I found not long ago and already wrote about.
There are many cultures with drawings of dinosaurs and witnesses of them that are anatomically correct, plus all the facts in this video. Here are a couple to carvings of stegasuarus among other known living animals in an Asian temple: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=YyY9Fuv3A9w, http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtQU5OLjEY&feature=related
Others at:
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=DSxBkif71ks&feature=related
Plus check this out. It's amazing. Here's a recent confirmation of dinosaur soft tissue discovered by a lead researcher and it's been published and peer reviewed. Can you explain how soft tissue can survive 70 million years???? This is a MAJOR and MASSIVE contradiction of evolution. The research says several times that this can't happen according to all experiments and laws of fossilization. She can't explain it at all because she and evolutionists assume that dinosaurs are 60+ million years old. The Bible's theory can explain it easily.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXyp8Zy1GY&NR=1
The lead researcher, Professor Mary Schweitzer, IS on record ON VIDEO at this link below as affirming that it's soft tissue with only the slightest of reservations. And you can see alot more detail in this video:
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA&NR=1 (an interview with lead researchers, and pictures of the soft tissues and confirmation by Yale university professor that red blood cells and soft tissue were found in dinosaur cells. There was tissue that proved the dinosaur was pregnant).
These videos, esp. the last, are 100% conclusive proofs that evolutionists are duping you and lying about what they have found. You can see the actual tissue itself in this video
The reporters state SEVERAL times that soft tissue was found. She never ONCE, NEVER ONCE, NEVER ONCE denies that, NOT ONCE. She ALSO says that they found and "It looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certain looks like cells and it acts like cells". She affirms that she has observed capillary structures and vessles. She says that they can take vessels and squeeze them out into solutions. She has only the slightest of reservations that they need to do some chemical analysis to be 100% sure. But, her attitude throughout the video is that she's 98% certain it's soft tissue, cells, capillaries and vessels and she has NO CLUE how to explain this happening and it flies in the face of all science she knows of (of course referring to evolution science). But, if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck...well you know the conclusion.
There's a longer seminar with proof that dinos lived with man here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs
Enjoy your day all!
Bryan
That video is hilarious. Someone standing in a white coat is not science.
The self-described chemist in the video cites the Glen Rose "mantracks" myth which even the creationists at AIG - which Bryan has cited elsewhere - have debunked.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm
Is this seriously the second time that Bryan has essentially contradicted himself?
So, as my earlier comment shows, even if you are a creationist, you should not take Bryan's comments any more seriously than you would a Google search return, because that about the level of critical thinking and cross-checking that's going into them. I believe it's called having an opinion and than searching for the evidence to back it up, which is precisely why I can't take creationist claims seriously, precisely because their basic sense of research and even understanding their own side is so shoddy.
Here's the creationists at Answers in Genesis:
Yep, that's the state of creationism and its defenders today.
And here's Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist and a Christian, who actually found the T-rex soft issue.
Beyond random YouTube clips, here's the Smithsonian getting past the hype.
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
. . .
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html?page=1
Well, if some can't even get their Googled data right. . .
But, she must be a really bad Christian and a bad scientist to not align with the creationist video secondary theorizing on the exact T-rex that she's the expert on. Does the soft tissue also disprove the rock dating?
Creationists here's another real Christian believer who is the expert on the exact evidence cited who disagrees with the armchair creationist theories. Any cognitive dissonance yet?
Alexander,
Thanks for the correction on the http://ncseweb.org/ site. A lot of things I have checked out thoroughly before...but a couple I added after a quick google and writing on only 3 hours of sleep or so..and so linked by mistake to an article I shouldn't have included. It's surprising that you would point out only that one instead of the VERY solid ones such as Dr. Veith's 7 hour lecture series with much primary research done by himself and www.nwcreation.net
As to my "methodology" :)...this is not a research journal. It's a conversational forum. I have and am doing some research and writing major projects with other colleaugues of mine for the purpose of making ESL language teaching a lot more effective to change people's lives in practical ways and attract them to the gospel. That and family and debt doesn't leave a lot of time for other things. Plus, I think that we already have far far far more than enough truth and evidence that people are not aware of to make intelligent choices. Many people are not aware of the enormous work has been done. I have done decades of discussion on this topic but at present quick responses with some cutting and pasting (much from my personal files I've read and used and some that I've written myself before, but a little new stuff too) is all I have time to. You use that like an epithet, but actually it's part of professional citing of sources. Researchers that I do editing for do that constantly to save time and as a professional courtesy and crediting those who did the original research. Again, if you would like to pay me a salary so that I don't have to work at 4 different schools...well, I'll accept :).
The Answering Genesis site that Bryan is also just copying straight from includes this expert in biolo. . .I mean theology and airplane aerodynamics.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/w_curtis.asp
--
Very good cherry picking Alexandar. You neglected to mention this:
Master of Science, [Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics]
Was that intentional???
Regarding Johnson, yes, he was a law professor, but you have fallen for the common fallacy that deceives people into thinking that if someone doesn't have a degree in a certain area, they have nothing to contribute. People with law degrees deal in proof and evidence and logic and things like that...all of which are VERY relevant to evolution which has major problems with all those things. But, yes, we do need some people to get the facts out to the public so that they will actually now the real problems of evolutionists which unscientific evolutionists are trying with all manner of tactics to hide and cover up.
"What also telling is that while some of the creationists listed above have published in serious journals, almost all those articles have not actually been about creationism. And the books are not from academic presses, which Bryan fails to note."
And for some reason, you think it's easy to just do science in an area that the establishment hates and then just mail it to an editor and BINGO..you'll get published. Sorry, but reality doesn't work like that Alexander. Massive prejudice presents much good research from being published in so called "serious journals" which is actually just code word for "evolutionary biased journals" when pro-evolutionary people use it. There are creation science journals that are every bit as scientific as the so called "serious journals".
The fact that some of the scientists published their research in serious journals in other fields or before they became famous as creationists and then were mostly stopped from publishing anything on the creation topic is conclusive and INDISPUTABLE evidence of incomparable bias in the serious journals. I've heard them criticized many times before by the evolutionist party line that is very grossly unfair and uses gigantic double standards on most who disagree with it and will cherry pick a couple of the weaker examples and ignore other evidence that is much stronger. But, did these scientists suddenly lose all the skills that they had before? Did an alien impersonate them? Did somebody do a lobotomy on their brains to make them unable to use the scientific skills they were recognized for before?
No, the answer is far simpler. Establishments don't like rival theories and throughout history have tried to ban or discredit them. It's not just in creation science. It's in many fields. My mentor has a ph.D. in teaching English as a 2nd language. He's got decades of university teaching experience, quite a number of published articles. He did research proving that using Korean to help students learn English vocabulary and grammar is faster and more efficient than English English only. His methodology was flawless. He presented the paper in a major conference. Top thinkers in the establishment were there. They didn't like his theory one bit since it was diametrically opposed to the establishments position that English only was best. They tried to argue with him...to make mountains out of molehills, other logical fallacies. He stopped them cold with hard evidence...finally they just sputtered..."well, I just don't believe you.". And now he has an enormously hard time getting published by any serious journal..because he flew in the face of the establishment. This man is my mentor and I've known him for 15 years. I don't know anyone ANYWHERE in the world better at teaching than he is. I've seen his results. I've taught some of his students. The methods he uses are better than any of the best textbooks on the market. But the American establishment doesn't like his results and so ban him from publishing. This kind of thing happens ALL the time. Thomas Kuhn's book demonstrates this CONCLUSIVELY.
"Anyway, Bryan, I believe that the link below would have sufficed rather than clogging up SPECTRUM by almost unreadable, copy-and-pasting straight from a page from the public relations-focused Discovery Institute. Not only is it very poor form to copy an entire webpage into a comment section, but you did it without citing it, which, in addition to getting one source backwards, adds to the dubious nature of "creationist" methodology and has really damaged your credibility. "
Sorry Alexander, I thought you knew how to use google. My bad. This isn't a journal and I'm not getting paid to write here and not getting any university credit for doing so. If people want sources for anything, I can provide it. A few things I haven't since I'm in a major rush at present. If I were publishing a paper, I would be doing much more thorough referencing. I was actually teaching a composition class last term and spent a LOT of time dealing with how to do academic writing and referencing, etc. But, this is NOT an academic forum. It's obviously a conversational one. The challenge was that creationists didn't do any real research or publish peer reviewed articles. THAT is the question I was answering and the allegation was blatantly false.
It's funny that you criticize me, but say nothing to the evolutionists who have been blatantly lying nonstop about creation theory. Just phenomenal.
"Focus on quality, not quantity, or you'll be asked to leave this space as we work to raise this blog's conversation standards higher."
I suggest you focus on asking people to stop lying about others' beliefs. That will be the best way to raise the quality. That's the only reason I sent the long articles. They made grossly false accusations. Deal with the cause of the problem. I'm just writing very rushed when I should not even be writing anything due to other projects. But, falsehoods about others beliefs are wrong. And falsehoods about the Bible such as evolution have been directly connected to many millions of deaths, massive amounts of wasted money, much destruction of belief in God and MUCH other harm to society. It's one of the most destructive beliefs ever to quality of life on earth as well as eternal life for many. THAT is what you really should be concerned about.
Bryan
Alexandar,
You wouldn't happen to have actually WATCHED the videos...where Mary herself states unequivocally that it is shocking and this find flies in the face of all kinds of theories about how tissues degrade (or another way to think about it would be it flies in the face of when dinosaurs died out..and YES ALEXANDER, it's VERY acceptable for others beyond the primary researcher to hypothesize other interpretations or solutions. Evolutionists do this all the time and please don't even start with criticizing this). The clips are posted on youtube, yes. But they weren't made there. You do realize that don't you. The clips on youtube vary in credibility of course. But these are rock solid interviews the primary researchers and the actual evidence can be seen. That's called primary evidence.
Of course Mary doesn't like people interpreting evidence in ways different from her opinion. What's news about that. Evolutionists do that all the time with creationists inventions (such as micro-evolution. Anyone is welcome to use micro-evolution, but it doesn't help anyone prove macro-evolution. Mary's evidence on the other hand makes it quite irrational to believe that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and it doesn't matter what the invented age of the rock is claimed to be). But, I guess it's OK for evolutionists to use ideas from creationists in their work, but for creationists, it's illegal....yet another in the mountains of double standards.
By the way, your own link to the smithsonian has this to say:
"As any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."
By the way, there are debunkers of your debunkers and the creationist arguments are far stronger than MANY evolutionist arguments. Unfortunately evolutionists can't stand a fair debate. Most prefer using false accusation, double standards, fake accusations of debunking without realizing that the scientists on the other side have rebuttals that are every bit as convincing...and often have more observable evidence.
Stupendously amazingly, the tactics that the evolutionists criticize in creationists are sometimes the exact same techniques they have used themselves to substantiate some of their claims. But, when the the evidence turns against them...they suddenly change their opinion about techniques
they used and how scientific they are.
Regarding Paluxy, it is more questionable for sure. But, there are some good rebuttals of the critics as well. But, it's a more iffy one. Sadly, you go into a straw man fallacy again...:
"Yep, that's the state of creationism and its defenders today."
You ignore the fact that evolutionists use different levels of evidence as well..some very strong..not so strong...and think it's valid. But, when creationists do that, you hypocritically straw man the weakest arguments as being representative of everything instead of debating with honest and integrity and taking on something like for example Dr. Veith's videos or Dr. Brown's prediction and subsequent confirmation of large ancient lakes above the Grand Canyon or the fact that there are no significant new life forms that we can't find in the fossils as even top evolutionists state or the fact that the evolutionary tree is nearly the reverse of what the fossil record shows as even top evolutionary professors have stated (one that I have record of says that 95% of the species in the past are now extinct).
I could discredit and absolutely demolish all aspects of evolution in a second if it was OK to use straw man and double standards and logical fallacies as frequently as you and Madden have. Easy as pie. But, NO. I meet evolution's major claims and it's BEST evidence and BEST proponents and deal with that. And still it's incompetent to provide any observable evidence. The cherry picking you're doing is a very superficial and lazy debate tactic.
Bryan
Bryan,
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
It seems to apply to both sides. Both creationism and evolution at the bottom-line are belief or faith issues.
Science has little it can offer. Tom
Bryan,
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
It seems to apply to both sides. Both creationism and evolution at the bottom-line are belief or faith issues.
Science has little it can offer. Tom
--
True to a large extent. I agree for sure that BOTH sides must use faith. But, like Isaiah 1 says "Come now, let us reason together", if we restrict science to actually observable evidence and use fair standards...those who are honest can be convinced by facts so that there is something like 80% fact based reason on the creation side and 20% faith and about 80-90% faith on the evolution side and 10-20% logical speculation on the evolution side. I've helped quite a number of people out of the delusions of evolution..but some insist on believing fiction and using logical fallacies no matter what you say. My main issue though is to help evolutionists and atheists realize that they use faith...then one of their biggest attacks against Christianity crumbles into hypocrisy and some become enlightened. But, I probably could use a better approach sometimes.
Bryan
If we were a public school board I'd be taking out a boat load of insurance right now. Part of the importance of the books David Pendleton reviewed for us is the real life way these issues are impacting communities.
While it is true that SDAs have private schools and can teach whatever they want and call it science, SDAs are still members of communities who may vote for public school board members and may have children attending public schools.
What Dover demonstrated is that a world a hurt can be brought about by True Believers who don't understand the complexity of the separation of church and state and what constitutes science. At this point in time, given the state of ID, if you decide to teach that ID is a viable scientific alternative to evolution, you will be sued and you will almost certainly lose causing enormous financial and emotional loss to your community. So saying both should be taught needs to be accompanied by an understanding of what that can really mean.
ID lost and lost very big at Dover, not because Judge Jones was an activist judge (the charge is ludicrous and he had quite a bit to lose politically given the conservative circles he ran in) but because, when finally given the opportunity to demonstrate all the evidence that makes ID a viable scientific alternative to evolution they couldn't do it. Even without the vast conspiracy of evolutionists holding them down, they couldn't do it. Saying over and over you have evidence doesn't make it so. They couldn't produce it. Their star witness acknowledged that under the definition of science IDers use, astrology would be a science. And acknowledged that he hadn't done anything to test his hypotheses. And so the judge really had no choice but to rule as he did. And he has suffered from that ruling in really unacceptable ways.
Of course it didn't help that some members of the school board didn't understand until too late that it was important to pretend that ID is not about religious beliefs. Lying about their motivations under oath wasn't smart.
Bryan
I thought about it over night and I think I want to play a game, as it were, or at least establish some ground rules so that we can make this conversation more productive, if not easier to wade through.
Here's my thoughts:
1. Let's try to limit our topics to one at a time.
2. One can propose to change the topic, and the next person to post gets to answer the previous topic, and then change the topic.
3. Try to limit personal attacks, I will of course do the same. For our purposes here, referring to evolutionists as X (where X is a bad thing) will constitute a personal attack on me as it would BE true of me.
4. Brevity is nice, but not mandatory.
I am also asking that if you are going to break down my arguments by section and analyze them that when you quote me you put a "strong" HTML tag (with brackets instead of quotes as shown below) before my quote and then "/strong" with brackets after it. It will bold my quote and then your answer will be unbolded. It make for a lot quicker and easier reading.
For example:
Bryan said:
"It's funny that you criticize me, but say nothing to the evolutionists who have been blatantly lying nonstop about creation theory. Just phenomenal."
Funny you should mention that, as that was related to the next topic I was going to propose.
Here's the proposed topic:
Of course, everyone else by all means can play!
Tom said:
Science has little it can offer.
It is exactly that kind of remark that makes scientists so nuts when it comes to debating this topic. Comments like that are so unhelpful.
Science (partly because of our understanding of biological processes including evolution) has extended life by what? 30 years? 35?
Science has given us better health, better quality of life, better ability to communicate with others, better ability to protect ourselves from natural events, I could go on and on. Saying science has little it can offer is like saying medicine has little it can offer.
Please.
J Madden,
Thank you for your response dated 10 February 2009 at 2:47. You stated that scientists who defend the theory of evolution have “earned a right to a dogmatic view is that they have actual validated evidence on their side of a view.”
For me the main issue regarding origin is the evidence for either design or lack of it. Where is the evidence for a lack of design in nature?
Unless you provide me with evidence for a lack of design in nature, how can I credit you with the right to be dogmatic? Actually, being dogmatic goes against the basic tenet of science. A true scientist is always open to evidence, regardless of its source, and he is willing to follow evidence even if it goes against his preconceived views. When you rule out the evidence for design a priori, you are not a scientist, but rather a man exercising a blind faith.
I did describe to you in my previous posting why I believe in design. When I was a kid, one day I found a watch on a dirty unpaved road. I knew immediately that said timepiece was the product of the random fluctuation of neither atoms nor a lucky combination of parts that had been produced without the intervention of intelligent activity.
When an explorer discovers a pyramid-like structure in the jungle of Peru or the Egyptian desert, he can immediately tell the difference between a mountain formation produced by natural erosion and a true pyramid. Likewise, if he finds elaborate paintings in a cavern, he needs no scientist to tell him that such works of art are the product of intelligent design.
So tell me now what evidence do you have for the lack of design in nature? Have you observed the spontaneous generation of life from inert non-living matter? Can you replicate this in a laboratory? Have you observed the transformation from one major life form into another one? Can you replicate this in the laboratory?
Have you ever observed the development of genetic material with billions bits of information properly arranged to produce life from non-living matter? Can your replicate such occurrence in the laboratory? Some years ago, Dr. Francis Collins, the celebrated scientist who worked on the Genome Project, stated the following at a graduation ceremony at the Loma Linda University: “ I was tempted to read to you the entire human genome sequence, but I gave up the idea once I realized that it would require over thirty years of non-top reading."
You are a trained scientist, so you know quite well that if you get some of the genes out of sequence the result might be serious for the health or life of the individual. Are you trying to tell me that the evidence is on your side? Are you expecting me to believe that this voluminous amount of genetic information simply evolved over time without any intelligence guidance or intelligent design?
You are also probably aware that all the alleged evidence for common descent is much better explained by common design. Since the evidence for design is so overwhelming, I have chosen to place my faith on common design. I don’t need the Bible to reach this conclusion, but what I find in the Bible reinforces in me the belief that I am on the right track.
Have you estimated the amount of time needed for billions bits of genetic information to combine in a proper order to produce the most simple living organism? Are you forgetting that we have, according to scientists, only 14.7 billions of years since the Big Bang, and only 600 million years for life to have evolved. Where is the evidence that all this could have taken place within such constraints of time?
When I was in high school, evolution was a theory. When did this theory suddenly become a fact? I have seen no evidence supporting this dogmatic assertion you made in your postings! I do believe in science, but the theory of evolution doesn’t look like science to me. I am overwhelmed by the evidence in nature pointing to the theory that there is design in nature, while I see no evidence for the opposite view held by you for the lack of design.
You told me that Intelligent Design lost in Dover because of a lack of peer review. How can you have peer review in scientific literary publications about Intelligent Design if science is dominated by Atheists, Agnostics, and spineless Christians who are dogmatic like you and won’t allow anything contrary to your pet naturalistic view of origins? How can Intelligence Design succeed if all the funding is directed towards the support of only one view of origins?
How can you expect the defenders of the ID theory to make any headway if the government and liberal judges have been indoctrinated by evolutionists who have a monopoly on education? Try allowing a level playing field in science for all scientists, regardless of their world view and you will see what happens to the theory of evolution.
I can guarantee you that, if science had an open mind to evidence, eventually evolution would be denigrated to its proper place as a mere metaphysical tenet unsupported by true science which is solidly based on observation, experimentation, replication, and verification.
You argue that the teaching of the theory of Intelligent Design is a violation of the separation between church and state. Where in the U.S. Constitution is the idea of the separation between church and state?
The Establishment Clause was created to prevent the government from adopting a particular brand of religious dogmas. The framers of our Constitution never intended to keep God out of our institutions, our schools, and our public life. Were it so, we wouldn’t have the phrase “In God we trust” imprinted on our dollars and coins.
Read the history of our nation and you will find constant reference to Almighty God. Our legal system and our freedom is based on the notion that we have been “created equal.” Created implies intelligent design. The founders of our nation did believe in Intelligent Design, otherwise they would not have included such a religious phrase in our Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...” These words penned by Thomas Jefferson are a watershed, not only in American history, but world history, and they flatly deny your argument that the theory of Intelligent Design should be kept out of our school curriculum.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
J Madden,
Thank you for your comments dated 11 February 2009 at 3:18. Your suggestion to deal with one topic like Intelligent Design at a time is a good one. Rambling over everything remotely connected with origins and creation is not helpful.
You also stated that length of posting is no problem. I believe that short postings are more effective. These long comments which require en eternity to wade through are giving me an intellectual indigestion. Can we shorten them to a manageable limit? There is no way for me to digest book-length comments every day.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic said:
Where is the evidence for a lack of design in nature?
Great question. One that is quite readily answered by evolution and science. There are a lot of examples in nature where design could either have been better, or was an outright hideous design.
The common term is “vestigial organs” is usually used in the negative although evolutionarily speaking it is not necessarily so. A list of them can be found here:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs.html (click on “Start”)
Here’s their list, so you don’t have to wade into it unless you want more detail:
More are listed in wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial
The answer is, of course, that no reasonable god would give us an appendix or wisdom teeth. Nope. Baaaaaad design.
Alexander,
I read your latest posting dated 11 February 2009 at 9:10 and I would like to make a practical suggestion. I noticed that your comments are usually short and to the point. Many participants are following your Example.
I do enjoy reading the Spectrum blog and the freedom management allows participants to voice their opinions. This is good. Nevertheless, I have discovered lately that some individuals take advantage of the fact that there is no limit to the length of their postingsand resort to burying the opposition with book length comments.
Extremely long postings are counterproductive, because they are intellectually indigestible given the speed with which new comments are posted. Besides, every time I want to locate my own or somebody else’s previous posting in order to respond in an intelligent manner, I have to wade through some never ending comments which make me waste precious time. Here are my suggestions:
A. Could management make the line separators between postings more visible when scrolling by using double solid lines instead of almost invisible single line? I like the way NARLA blog was designed. Individual postings are clearly demarcated for easy reading, which allows the reader to skip postings the reader is not interested in wading through.
2. Could you explore the possibility of placing a limit to the amount of material for a single posting, let’s say a maximum of seven pages length?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
J Madden,
Thanks for your quick response dated 11 February 2009 at 4:36. You have provided me with a good and logical answer I can digest quickly, and I will give you a quick and short answer as well:
Apparently poor design is no evidence of lack of design. Evidence for intelligent design does not address what the Bible talks about: the perfection and benevolent nature of the designer. Can we set the Bible aside and deal strictly with the evidence? I call this a scientific approach. Whether the designer is the epitome of perfection is something we can discuss later after we solve the problem of whether there is evidence for design in nature or not.
When we try to solve this enigma, we need to forget what we have learned from religion and stick instead to scientific, observable evidence. So far, you have not provided any evidence for a lack design. The most you have tried to prove is that the design was not perfect in all its details. What if I told you that somebody has been messing with the original design?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
J.
We agree on the observations. We disagree on the conclusions.
Since I commented on what I don't believe about Genesis 1,2
I thought I should expand on what I do believe.
1. God is from everlasting to everlasting.
2. Our Galaxy is ever ever old and so is our solar system.
3. The earth within our solar system was without form until God proposed a creation plan.
4. In that plan the Godhead agreed to a plan of redemption known among reform scholars as the Covenant of Redemption and to SDA's as the Everlasting Covenant.
5. God created a bio-viable earth by fiat many more than six thousand years ago.
6. The Genesis account is a man's eye view of that creative
act. Thus the sun, moon , and stars could become visible from earth on the third day.
7. Adam was given dominion which he surrendered to Lucifer.
8. Lucifer took dominion and wrecked havoc with the degrees of adaptation of kinds God provided.
9. God decided Lucifer went too far, and created a catastrophic event the wiped out all but a few remaining kinds.
10. Never-the-less, God permitted adaptation and variation to continue within limits.
11. The Geological evidence of that catastrophy are still with us and are still being plumbed.
12. Science released from the dogma of the middle ages, has made advances to social benefit dispite their errors in conclusions regarding origins.
13. For example penicillin and the entire antibiotic industry did not occur became of a belief system but because of a informed observation of a chance happening in a petri dish.
14. God permits people to disagree with Him but are ultimately accountable to Him.
15. God gave us life for a purpose. It is our task to plume that purpose and use it to assist, help, nuture his creation, particularly other human kind.
16. Christianity correctly understond is the best pattern for the fulfillment of that purpose. Tom
"What if I told you that somebody has been messing with the original design?"
Then, if anything and everything is possible, why not simply say that we will speculate on how everything came to be. Nothing will then, be impossible. Maybe inhabitants of other worlds "messed" with this earth? Maybe a Godzilla or nuclear radiation changed everything?
Why not write sci-fi, it's more imaginative and there are no limitations.
Nic,
I am not sure I followed all of the statements you made, but I will try to address them.
Apparently poor design is no evidence of lack of design. Evidence for intelligent design does not address what the Bible talks about: the perfection and benevolent nature of the designer. Can we set the Bible aside and deal strictly with the evidence? I call this a scientific approach. Whether the designer is the epitome of perfection is something we can discuss later after we solve the problem of whether there is evidence for design in nature or not.
My list of 10 was purely natural (scientific and obvious) observations, they were facts of nature. The premise of a designer is that he or she would not want to incorporate poor design into the process, right? He or she would not put unnecessary and/or harmful bits into the design. Ask any engineer. They strive for perfect design, as would anyone. The evidence of a failure in design is either 1) A bad Designer or 2) evidence that was no design at all, but the random process of evolution.
If someone were to claim that the design was “Intelligent” than one should be able to see evidence of that intelligence by good design. If the design is flawed, or is better explained by random processes of mutation and evolution, then that is evidence against a designer.
When we try to solve this enigma, we need to forget what we have learned from religion and stick instead to scientific, observable evidence. So far, you have not provided any evidence for a lack design. The most you have tried to prove is that the design was not perfect in all its details. What if I told you that somebody has been messing with the original design?
I would respond that you are complicating your own “theory”. It is not enough that we assume that there was a Designer. We now have to assume that there is a person messing with the Designers work?
So there are put forth three theories to address vestigial organs:
1) There was an intelligent designer
2) There was an intelligent designer and a malignant foe messing with the designers work.
3) Vestigial organs are the left-overs from evolution.
Number 1 does not hold up to scrutiny because of the presence of bad design and doesn’t explain well, if at all, why the designer would leave parts in creatures that don’t need them.
Number 2 adds unnecessary complications, and is literally unverifiable, so must be either religion, or needless conjecture since Number 3 explains everything.
Again, Occam’s Razor (the explanation of any phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory) would eliminate the designer as being as unnecessary assumption since it doesn’t fit the design evidence, and the malignant foe would be an even greater assumption, so the logical and scientific answer is Number 3.
I would love to forget we are dealing with religion, except that Intelligent Design IS a religious idea. It was categorically proven in court to be such. It doesn’t get any better than that, with the possible exception of peer-reviewed journals.
Tom,
I have no real concern over your religious beliefs except where ever they stipulate that evolution did not occur.
I will point out that I am reasonable sure that many of your beliefs fail the SDA “Fundamental Belief, Number 6”: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
Not that I care, I just thought that was interesting.
The Catholics (and others) have an interesting way of dealing with science. This is of course due to their extensive historical experience with being categorically proven wrong on numerous occasions, but I digress. They believe that science informs us of the natural world but can say nothing of the Spirit. I like it. Oh that all the other religions could grasp that. Since the religions that fight science and the observed natural world are going to be corrected and/or eliminated over time, it is really a loss to them. Again, not that I care. Good riddance.
J.
I am at odds with at least four of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Yet, I fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists as I do with all of God's children including those who reject God and God's creative act and power.
The observation of science are usually correct. The conclusions of science are subject to all of human errors, as are the assumptions of many if not all religions.
True creationist believe in a far more rapid and extensive
rate and types of change and adaptation that do evolutionists.
So far no one has brought up the issue did Adam and Eve have a belly button or was Adam always one rib short of a full deck.
Otherwise, as far as I am concerned this blog has run its course. Tom
I think an issue that complicates the neat categories of natural world and spirit is the fact that the natural world is supposed to teach us something about a creator assuming there is one.
Traditional Christianity holds that there is a God who somehow created the natural world. So far no problem with evolution - many people say that is simply how God created.
However, traditional Christianity holds that this God is all loving, all-powerful, hates death and suffering, and is personally involved with our lives. It is also a basic standard of Christianity that we screwed up (fell if you will away from God) and are thus in need of a redeemer. It was not God's plan that we be separate - it was somehow our fault. Jesus was that redeemer in some mysterious way. I think most would agree that these are pretty bare minimum Christian beliefs.
The problem, as I see it, is that the natural world does not paint a very pretty picture of the creator. This is a creator who used death as an integral part of creation. Creatures suffered for millions of years long before humans arrived. The very method of creation counters the idea of a god who hates death and suffering. Humans came along through this same process, endowed with all of the both negative and positive traits that make us human. We were never perfect, never closer to God in some way. We were born alienated and separate by the very method of our creation. And then this creator has the gall to claim to author a book that blames us for it.
Evolution puts theodicy on steroids. Studying the natural world does not confirm the kind of God that traditional Christianity portrays. Of course, it doesn't prove it wrong either - it can't - but it sure doesn't help.
Many of the vocal atheists in this debate aren't aware enough in theology to tackle these issues (and they really are theological not scientific), the creationists are too busy hyperventilating over the science (that horse left the barn a long time ago) and the theistic evolutionists don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Tom said:
The observation of science are usually correct. The conclusions of science are subject to all of human errors, as are the assumptions of many if not all religions.
Ah but science is subject to testability and verifiability. it's built into the Scientific Method to question and test every conclusion to the point of near absurdity. Bad theories rapidly fail the test and go away. Good theories last 150 years and counting.
Religion actually teaches "Blessed are those that have not seen and yet believe". It is blessed to have "blind" faith. To not observe, not test, and in many cases, not even question.
Creationists would have the Scientific Method check with the bible after every step and pass/fail our theories. No thanks. Our method works better for finding the facts.
If you are done with this blog, feel free to move on. If not, pleases continue. Either way, it's not done until we all leave it done or the host turns it off.
J. Ah yes, but science has yet to test the fundamental propositions of evolution successfully. Nor has religion.
Tom 10-4 and out.
J Madden,
Thanks again for your quick response dated 11 February 2009 at 6:37. I read your arguments several times and I faill to detect any evidence for a lack of design in nature. You stated the following:
If someone were to claim that the design was “Intelligent” then one should be able to see evidence of that intelligence by good design.
This argument of yours does not indicate the lack of design, but rather that the design might have been imperfect, or that the original design was degraded by either somebody messing up with the original design or else the incorporation of errors in the original genetic information. Evolution and scientific observation provide ample evidence that errors do take place in the transmission of the genetic code.
To me, the fact that most babies are born with very few abnormalities speaks volumes about the goodness of the original design. I could say the same about nature in general, the beauty of flowers, the abundance and variety of food necessary for the maintenance of life and so on.
I do not consider the presence of vestigial organs as a serious indication of poor design. We do not know enough about the presence of what seems unnecessary or harmful. I am surprised that you did not mention predation as evidence of faulty design. Vestigial organs might be harmful in some cases; nevertheless, this pales in comparison with the harmful effects on predation.
This is why I suggested that we stick with what can be observed, replicated, and verified in nature. The theory of Intelligent Design should be divorced from any religious preconceptions and any direct connection with the Bible. Once we resolve the problem of either the evidence for design or lack of design, then we can move on to any other facet of origins.
If we find a painting in a cave depicting a human being with an extra eye, arm or any other “vestigial” organ, we do not conclude that the picture evolved by the sheer force of natural forces. We conclude that for some reason the designer wanted to portray a rare specimen of humanity. I repeat, poor design is no evidence for a lack of design.
Sometime ago I saw the drawing for a flying machine dated several centuries before the Wright brothers invented the first prototype of our current airplanes. The design was imperfect, but the lack of perfection has led nobody to conclude that the drawing was the result of natural forces.
So I am waiting. So far, you have not given me any evidence for a lack of design, but rather the suggestion that either the original design was imperfect, or else that the original design was messed up by somebody or by the introduction of errors in the transmission of genetical data. If it is true that life has existed for the last 600 millions years, then there has been plenty of time for the introduction of errors into the gene pool.
Lastly, you suggested that Intelligent Design and Religion are one and the same. I strongly disagree. This might have been true in Dover, but I am asking you to stick with the observable data in nature. Let us look at the evidence either for or against design in nature.
If we can reach an agreement on this, then it might be productive to move to other facets of origins. If not, there is no point in even trying. There is a need to place a firm foundation for our discussion upon which we can build with confidence. If our premise is faulty, our conclusion will be worthless.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
The problem of "poor design," like certain vestigial organs, is not that they are "not good design," it's that they are not design. They are expected (because of shared developmental processes) in evolution, and not by any known design principles or practices. You simply do not find the extremely conservative hereditary constraints in design that you find in evolution, and only non-telic evolution accounts for essentially useless features, like juvenile platypus teeth and kiwi wings.
And I would note that not all flightless wings are "poor design," notably penguin wings which are used very well in swimming. Nevertheless, even these have the earmarks of evolution from wings which were used for flight, and are not, for instance, closely homologous with fish fins or with ichthyosaur fins, both of which would be at least as good to begin with as would be wings capable of flight. Likewise, platypus teeth are not simply rather functionless (though they likely play a role in development) structures which fall out before adulthood, they are homologous with teeth that ancient platypus adults did use. This sort of hereditary linkage and constraint is predicted by evolution, senseless under any "design principles."
Anyway, I would again like to link to a blogpost I wrote a few months ago, discussing how ID's problem is not particularly poor design, but the evident cause of "poor design". The problem with Archaeopteryx from a "design standpoint" is not simply that it is not an especially good "design" for flying, it is that it is not a particularly good "design" for flying because the animal is constrained by its dinosaurian ancestry and the relatively gradualistic processes of mutation plus natural selection (and other evolutionary processes).
I link because I don't think that a cut-and-paste is really appropriate here , and because there is no point in re-writing what I have already written elsewhere. The fact is that the answers to virtually all creationist objections exist, and the creationists either fail to avail themselves of these answers, or they repeat their objections because they have no meaningful reply to those answers.
Glen Davidson
Tom said:
J. Ah yes, but science has yet to test the fundamental propositions of evolution successfully. Nor has religion.
I read this morning that there are two kinds of people in this world, those that believe in Evolution, and those that have not read the evidence. While that is a bold and arrogant statement from the person that made it, scientists have cause to be bold with regards to Evolution.
150 years, and the theory is shown to be true in every branch of biology. The only thing that comes close to that is Relativity, which interestingly, as far as I know no Adventist or other religion in the world would question, even though it has been proven by much the same means. Certain religions make a special case out of Evolution. They believe in gravity, in entropy, in cell division, crystallization, medicine, etc. etc., but they separate out this ONE bit of science for special treatment. I cry hypocrisy (not to you, in general).
One could say that if science and scientists are so bad at what they do, perhaps one shouldn’t see a doctor. EVER. They use science, ya know? One shouldn’t trust one’s medication, certainly. One shouldn’t use technology, who knows WHAT might happen? On and on.
I am jesting, slightly, but one does boggle at the arrogance of the religious people that enjoy the benefits of scientific inquiry while simultaneously saying it is so bad at what it does.
Nic said:
To me, the fact that most babies are born with very few abnormalities speaks volumes about the goodness of the original design. I could say the same about nature in general, the beauty of flowers, the abundance and variety of food necessary for the maintenance of life and so on.
I am not contesting that evolution has rendered a pretty good product. Quite the contrary. But it is NOT a perfect product, a well-designed product. It has serious flaws. Babies are born with holes in their hearts. They have tails. They have appendix that will later burst. They have the residual traces of a nictating membrane in the eye. They have lots of genes left over from their ancestors that serve no function for them currently yet are still there (sickle cell anemia as a response to Malaria).
If the designer was trying to get things right, he was drunk at the time.
On the contrary, evolution would explain everything I just said, and better. Again, Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is most likely.
My argument is not solely that a bad design indicates a lack of design. It is that a bad design indicates a lack of design ESPECIALLY when there is a better theory that explains the lack of Design near-perfectly. You cannot separate the two pieces, they are one argument. Or at least I won’t let you. ;-)
I do not consider the presence of vestigial organs as a serious indication of poor design. We do not know enough about the presence of what seems unnecessary or harmful. I am surprised that you did not mention predation as evidence of faulty design. Vestigial organs might be harmful in some cases; nevertheless, this pales in comparison with the harmful effects on predation.
This is why I suggested that we stick with what can be observed, replicated, and verified in nature. The theory of Intelligent Design should be divorced from any religious preconceptions and any direct connection with the Bible. Once we resolve the problem of either the evidence for design or lack of design, then we can move on to any other facet of origins.
I listed plenty of things that occur in nature. Not sure what you are disallowing there.
Re: Predation. That is hardly even a concern to me compared to some issues. For example, what kind of god allows Mass Extinctions to occur on a regular basis throughout the geologic record? Were talking entire worldwide ecosystems wiped out. Repeatedly. Which by the way isn’t even mentioned in the Genesis account, yet is factually undeniable. I digress.
Intelligent Design cannot be divorced from the bible or at least religion. It was proven to be such in court.
If we find a painting in a cave depicting a human being with an extra eye, arm or any other “vestigial” organ, we do not conclude that the picture evolved by the sheer force of natural forces. We conclude that for some reason the designer wanted to portray a rare specimen of humanity. I repeat, poor design is no evidence for a lack of design.
I guess if you want to admit that your “Cave Painter” is evil and malevolent for allowing appendix and the like, I guess I can’t argue that point, other than to say it still fails the Occam’s Razor test of a simpler theory and the scientific method for that matter.
It certainly begs the question of why one would want to follow such a being much less put ones life in it’s hands. Either one has a loving Designer that let evolution do it’s dirty work for it, or one believes in a very evil Designer. Doesn’t seem to be much room there.
Sometime ago I saw the drawing for a flying machine dated several centuries before the Wright brothers invented the first prototype of our current airplanes. The design was imperfect, but the lack of perfection has led nobody to conclude that the drawing was the result of natural forces.
So I am waiting. So far, you have not given me any evidence for a lack of design, but rather the suggestion that either the original design was imperfect, or else that the original design was messed up by somebody or by the introduction of errors in the transmission of genetical data. If it is true that life has existed for the last 600 millions years, then there has been plenty of time for the introduction of errors into the gene pool.
So I can assume from your last line there that you posit that the designer created life 600 million years ago? Am I understanding that you accept that evolution (errors in the gene pool) altered the design from the Origin point? That changes the debate.
Lastly, you suggested that Intelligent Design and Religion are one and the same. I strongly disagree. This might have been true in Dover, but I am asking you to stick with the observable data in nature. Let us look at the evidence either for or against design in nature.
If we can reach an agreement on this, then it might be productive to move to other facets of origins. If not, there is no point in even trying. There is a need to place a firm foundation for our discussion upon which we can build with confidence. If our premise is faulty, our conclusion will be worthless.
I am afraid that Dover conclusively demonstrated that ID is a religious point of view and I can't allow that to be disallowed. The matter was weighed in court and found to be of a religious nature as I stated earlier it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that outside of peer-reviewed journals. Michael Behe, who I am sure you are aware is the leading “expert” proponent on the subject has stated that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
I would ask of you a serious question: Is the “Intelligent Designer” a god, or not. If not, then what is it? Please be as specific as you can. Is it The God? If so, then we have religion. There is no other options.
As shown so well in the transcripts of the Dover trial, the ID crowd has tried very hard to sell a theistic idea (ID) as a scientific one. It failed. In court. In science.
I personally think it is a bit disingenuous of Christians et al when they try to sell ID as anything other than religious. It might even qualify as a "sin" to claim teh Designer is not god and silently believe that it is in order to fool other people. I am open to correction on that. I actually would like to know how a Christian can tell a lie (the Intelligent Designer is not God) if that is in fact what they secretly believe.
Madden,
I'm very busy for the next two days and this weekend I may have to travel since my uncle just arrived in Korea. I'm very willing to do a debate in much more civil ways that are more productive for both sides. But, you need to demonstrate some genuine qualities of scientific objectivity and integrity you have been very poor at doing so so far. You make numerous false claims several of which I have categorically proven false (the idea that creation scientists don't do research and don't publish in peer reviewed journals). On the other side you give evolution credit for things it has absolutely NOTHING to do with (such as health and long life. Pasteur, Jenner, Daimon (with MRIs), 911 services and all kinds of other things deserve the credit, evolution deserves none since it hasn't ever even been observed. If anything it's micro-evolution, a Christian creationist theory that deserves the credit for advances like Pasteurs and Jenners. But, these illusions of grandeur are common to most evolutionists and I'm willing to work through them with you as I have time and expose them for what they are. I again assume that you are intelligent and smart and I will keep on trying to assume and try to avoid personal attacks, but you are grossly misinformed about creation science comparable to how the North Koreans spread propaganda about South Korea being a country filled with slaves. Regarding personal attacks, saying negative things about evolutionists and creationists is a necessary part of debate. But, try to restrict it to things that are as far as possible truthful and attack the ideas and concepts as much as you can rather than the people. Same goes for me. The personal attacks that are reprehensible are ones that are patently false such as "Bryan is stupid" or "Madden is brainless" or "All creationists/evolutionists are foolish" , "Creationists never do peer reviewed research", etc. These are wholly groundless and with no evidence they ridicule the other sides ability to do good work in science even though the facts are that many on BOTH sides are very solid scientists of the highest caliber (but many on both sides have assumptions and faith and mistakes which can be proven). You will notice that I have never called all evolutionists stupid or incompetent in scientific areas. Evolutionists do good work in biology, astronomy, homology and many other areas...the problem is that homology and many other things evolutionist purport as evidence are not the observable evidence that the scientific method requires in order for evolution to be proven evolution true.
Respect for both sides qualifications and skill is a fundamental basic, esp. when creationists have contributed SO GREATLY to both the foundation and the continuing development of science and evolutionists also have helped us to gain much knowledge in different areas. But I will attack ridiculous and unscientific ideas and expose them as the logical fallacies that they are. But your education regarding both creation science and evolution is woefully deficient and almost completely inaccurate in quite a few areas.
It's not a game Madden. 100 million people lost their lives in the last century directly because of evolution, esp. when combined with atheism (this doesn't prove evolution false, but it should make us check the facts VERY carefully). And it has had numerous other very disastrous effects as well such as destroying the faith of millions in God.
A couple questions:
1st, what's your world view. You sound like you're nearly an atheist, but probably more of an agnostic.
2nd, what do you believe regarding abiogenesis/the big bang. If you believe a God started the universe and created matter for the big bang, etc., why would he need evolution to create life?
A couple ground rules of my own.
1) There needs to be a commitment to admit and correct errors when they have been made. If you never correct even your most blatant errors or I don't, this is a waste of time for us (although others may benefit). You will notice that I corrected my slight error regarding dendrochronology immediately. You have not corrected even your most egregious errors. When I presented incontrovertible evidence, you suddenly changed the topic, red herring. In the same way, we should try to be honest about the arguments of our opponents and look for areas where we can agree and try to be honest and admit when they provide good and solid evidence. For example, I'll say that the evolution of languages is something that could be considered observable proof for macro-evolution in linguistic areas (but not biological). I've never EVER said that before. But, in discussing it this week, realize that that is a case where it seems that something like macro-evolution has happened.
2) Try REALLY hard to avoid logical fallacies, esp. the particularly heinous one of cherry picking the very weakest argument and then acting like that's representative of all the arguments. You have made mountains of false accusations ranging from cherry picking to straw men that are just 100% and indisputably false and conflict with all kinds of known history. Yet another of numerous examples is this one:
"Religion actually teaches "Blessed are those that have not seen and yet believe". It is blessed to have "blind" faith. To not observe, not test, and in many cases, not even question."
In certain contexts faith is critical, true. But, this is cherry picking at it's worst. The Bible NEVER tells us to use blind faith. It tells us to use fath based on evidence. It tells us to reason things out, to use our minds, to look for evidence, to test things in many places. Jesus said,
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Matthew 22:37
He didn't say this so that we could just waste our mind. Here and in many other places God states that we should use our minds, reason things out, test things to see if they are valuable, etc.
There are very important reasons why science developed to it's fullest extent in Europe after the protestant reformation rather than in other places. And they have directly to do with reason and logic and a number of principles taught in the Bible that promote scientific thinking.
Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo Galilei
It is absolutely and categorically untrue and a gigantic straw man that religion rests only on blind faith. It categorically does not. Making these kinds of grossly untrue allegations is something that does not help us in the least to have a productive discussion.
3) Realize that as Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices." I live in Korea. What I think is logical is not taken as logical in the least by many people here. The reverse is true. Korea has phenomenal education (#1 in the world at the high school level recently), but what they think is logical in some cases would be absolutely crazy to you...but sometimes their logic turns out to be right. But, logic by itself since it depends so much on experience and what you've been taught does not prove much if anything.
4) Since logic is not science as above, the evidence must be limited to what the scientific method says, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE evidence of what the theories claim. For example, homology is all great and find. But, it does not even begin to demonstrate evolution. It's interesting for other purposes that might be called scientific, but it has nothing to do with proving evolution as the octopus and human eye demonstrates (and saying that octopus and humans are related was quite a whopper...except in the sense that all beings are related since they are living.
5) Theories on similar topics must be compared. Thus the creation event can ONLY fairly be compared to abiogenesis and macro-evolution can only fairly be compared to micro-evolution. This is fundamental to a just and fair debate. Evolutionists all the time try to compare creation to macro-evolution when they are not even dealing with the same event or question. That's gross scientific error of the most elementary kind. You need to compare theories that are answering the SAME question. Otherwise this is just an irrational discussion. Should I compare the evidence for the theory of gravity to the theory of black holes and just because I have more evidence for gravity state that black hole theory is wrong? That's just ridiculous. You compare theories that try to answer the same questions in real genuine science. That means creation vs. abiogenesis (since they try to answer the question about how life originated) and macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution (since they try to answer the question about how life adapts/evolves AFTER life began).
6) Realize that no side is every going to be able to provide conclusive evidence of what happened many 1000s of years or millions of years ago. But, we can look at the weight of evidence and then exercise a bit of faith or extrapolation from that. Don't ridicule others for using faith when you use every bit as much and that even science as top thinkers agree is based on axioms that are unproveable, faith. But, I categorically disagree with Tom that "science has little to offer" unless he was referring to limited contexts such as conclusively proving origins and even there I would have serious disagreement. At the very least we can look at different theories and predict what we should see as a result of that and then look for evidence and compare and see which theory has the most weight of evidence. If you read an argument or a presentation or an article, don't just speak at a superficial level and say this or that person is dumb or crazy. Give specific reasons why AND the observable evidence that supports YOUR theory better than his/her theory.
7) Give some kind of honest assessment of the other's arguments after each topic is finished that recognizes it's strengths but points out it's weaknesses and identify where you've changed in your thinking if at all.
In addition, try to treat our opponents with respect and as intelligent people even though we might disagree with them. There are extremely intelligent and smart and very scientific people on ALL sides of the issue. Have the integrity to recognize that. If you think someone is in error, provided the evidence FIRST for why you think they are in error. Then say they are in error on that point...don't categorically label them stupid or unscientific, etc.
I've gotta run now...these are a couple of the ground rules. Most evolutionists are afraid of a fair contest with rules like this. I hope you are not. I might be able to respond briefly over the next couple days, but I don't know how much until Monday afternoon due to several other urgent commitments.
Last, Madden, you should demonstrate some scientific curiousity and some seriousness about this debate by at least listening to presentations on creation science at a serious level. I've listened to many arguments and presentations by some of the best evolutionists. You are so vastly misinformed about creation science at present as evidenced by numerous of your comments, this is the least you should do. We should both commit to reading some of the links that the other provides, esp. the ones that are stated as critical...I've read through several of yours, but not all. But if you say something is really critical to read, as I have time, I'll do it and you should do the same for me.
Please do these 2 things (and if you want me to watch something like this on your side, I'm quite fine with that):
1) listen to a basic overview by Lee Strobel, former atheist, "The Case for the Creator" in 6 parts starting at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8372ks0raI (this is not very in depth science, but it gives you a basic overview that will remove MANY of your very dire misconceptions about creation science.)
2) Listen to 1-2 presentation from Dr. Veith (esp. video 101,103 or 105, I especially emphasize #105)
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html
Best of everything to you,
Bryan
P.S. Nic, in terms of length, to extricate people from their illusions regarding creation science, sometimes lots of evidence is the only way to do that. But, I will try to provide more links to articles which people should read in order to make this blog less cluttered.
P.S.S. Madden, I doubt this will be possible to be brief but I will try at times. There is so much misunderstanding of creation science. It usually requires mountains of evidence to convince evolutionists that they've been taught a lot of false information regarding creation science.
P.S.S.S The formatting options on Spectrum are REALLY tedious. Could the site managers make it possible to underline and bold things just by doing ctrl-b or ctrl-u or something like that. I'll try to do formatting sometimes as you request...but I've got many urgent things to do that I've been procrasting a LOT on already.
Regarding your third post script: Using <strong> and </strong> is the simplest way to script bold font. But in general, when the words one chooses have enough gravitas of their own, CAPS or other font tricks may become less necessary.
-Website Editors
I would ask of you a serious question: Is the “Intelligent Designer” a god, or not. If not, then what is it? Please be as specific as you can. Is it The God? If so, then we have religion. There is no other options.
As shown so well in the transcripts of the Dover trial, the ID crowd has tried very hard to sell a theistic idea (ID) as a scientific one. It failed. In court. In science.
--
Madden, there's a MASSIVE flaw in this reasoning..and the American legal system. The American founders meant to SEPARATE religion and politics so that the govt. wouldn't force people to worship on pain of fine, imprisonment, death, etc. They NEVER EVER meant that the govt. should BAN the investigations of truths that originate in religion or any other philosophy from education. They would roll over in their graves if they could see the lunacy and suppression of scientific inquiry that is happening today in this area. This is one of the most heinous perversions ever perpetrated. ID and creation are similar, but I'll be arguing for creationism and I make no bones about it (although I might use some ID material) and YES, it's religious. But, any philosophy that uses faith is every bit as religious. Evolution is far more religious than the Bible in actual fact. There is absolutely NO problem with religion being involved in science and it's just anti-intellectual to ban something because of the philosophy it originates from. The ideas should be considered on their own merits, not rejected based on an ad hominem logical fallacy which is precisely what is happening in America's legal system at present. Religion can test science and science can test religion in a variety of ways.
Let me make this simple for you Madden. The law is grossly unjust, just like the laws in the 1960s banning blacks from white restaurants. If I made a law banning anything that Darwin has thought up from the discussion and then go to trial with that foundation, what result is going to happen? The inevitable outcome would be that creation would win. The game would be fixed before it even started. What if I said that no one named Madden could win in court and set in concrete in law. The game would be fixed and the outcome predetermined. The exact same thing happened at Dover and other places. It's a 100% fixed fight. Judge Jones had to follow a grossly unfair standard. But, if we are intelligent, then truth from ANY source, if it has solid evidence, ESP. truth that deals with practical life on earth and life forever, should NEVER EVER be banned. I don't care what philosophy it comes from. But, to ban ideas from education just because of the philosophy they come from is a logical fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy. It is the murder of science and the annihilation of fairness and intellectual curiousity and will directly hinder much progress. ALL ideas that have rational support, scientific support, experiential support should be considered fairly and the judges should not be bound to ridiculously unfair standards. More importantly the judges should have done a deep amount of investigation on both sides and be really informed enough to make a rational decision. It is just absolute lunacy and the height of bias and logical fallaciousness to ban an idea because of the philosophy it originates from. You wouldn't in the least think it was fair if I banned evolution solely because it originated in Darwinism. Don't commit the gross injustice and intellectual suicide of thinking that a fixed fight has anything to do with genuine science, rational thinking, intellectual curiosity or an honest search for truth. It's no different from the Chinese censors banning discussions and debates on democracy. Absolutely no different. The Chinese paleontologist, Dr. J.Y. Chen, wrote it this way:
"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."
Those who support biased fraudulent fixed fights whose conclusions are inevitable have no interest in genuine scientific inquiry, searches for truth and they are being very seriously anti-intellectual (maybe innocently due to indoctrination though). If an idea can find confirmation, can be tested and found valuable (and there are MANY ways to do it), it should be considered as something possible to include in education. FULL STOP. But persecution of those who think differently, esp. of the fine, imprisonment, death version and others should never be allowed of course. And if the govt. is involved in something, it should never be so biased as it is currently in favor of one position. It should treat all theories with equality and demand that all meet tests that are consistent across the board. Such is not even close to done at present.
Bryan
Madden,
Just got a call from my uncle (who by the way has been an SDA professor for many years in systematic theology and similar areas) and the plans for this weekend didn't work out, so we'll meet a couple weeks later. That means I'll have more time this weekend than I expected, but still very busy today and tomorrow.
Editors,
Regarding your third post script: Using "strong" and "/strong" is the simplest way to script bold font. But in general, when the words one chooses have enough gravitas of their own, CAPS or other font tricks may become less necessary.
-Website Editors
--
Thanks very much for your making this forum available for people to discuss important issues. I really appreciate it and know others do. But, I've been on many discussion groups at groups.yahoo.com and when using e-mail (esp. Eudora) in connection with that, the clarity and ability to differentiate between the author and the words of the person being responded to is MUCH easier to see as well as to write. I wonder if you might be able to consider something like this as I'm sure it would save a LOT of time for many and improve the clarity. The ability to use color and underlines would also be very helpful. The html stuff is just very tedious and time consuming here compared to many other places I've been involved in discussions. I can send you examples if you wish by e-mail..but possibly the programming is more complicated than it appears. In any case, thanks for providing this forum for discussion and God bless,
Bryan
J Madden,
Thank you for your answer dated 11 February 2009 at 9:59 and thank you for keeping it clear and short. I like that. The first comment which jolted me a bit was the following: “If the designer was trying to get things right, he was drunk at the time.”
I feel that this statement is definitely unfair for the designer, if there was one. The reason is very simple. What is available for us to observe in nature is not the original design, but a copy of a copy of a copy going back 600 million years, if we allow for the evolutionists estimates of how long life has existed on our planet.
Do you realize how unfair is for you to conclude that the designer was drunk when neither you nor I have acces to the original design. The original design might have been without a flaw, but nobody can either prove or disprove this, which means that silence would have been more appropriate for you in this respect.
Some years ago I was invited to present my views about this issue at a Sabbath School populated by a large number of Adventist agnostics and a couple of declared atheists. I decided to run an experiment with my computer. I took a beautiful and artfully created design and made a copy of it, then I took the copy and made a copy of it, and a copy of the next copy. By the time I had made approximately thirty copies, the picture was so degraded that I felt there was no use continuing.
Would it have been fair for me to judge the original artist on the basis of a copy of a copy of a copy going back 600 million years? This is why I told you that when I see a just born baby with all the organs in their respective places, I am amazed that the copy of a copy of a copy going back 100, 000 years, according to evolutionists, still looks so great in the majority of cases; this in spite of the fact that humans have been such careless in avoiding what is harmful to the human race.
Next you appealed to the “Occam’s Razor” argument. I do agree that the Occam’s Razor rule makes a lot of scientific sense. The problem is that, like I argued above, we have no access to the original design, if there was one. DNA gets degraded pretty fast, and the fossils we have access to are not able to provide us access to the original design.
If you apply the Occam’s Razor to the copies of the original design which are available to us in nature today, you run the risk of making the biggest scientific blunder of your life. You assume that you are on "terra firma," but you may discover later on that you were standing of sinking sand. I hate to see you skating on thin ice as well. If you do that, you better make sure someone is standing on the sore with a lifeline in case the ice brakes.
On the surface the Occam’s Razor seems to solve the problem of vestigial organs and the problem of predation, but it provides no scientific answer to the problem of the origin of life. You might be aware that Darwin’s ancestors were adamant defenders of the theory of spontaneous generation of life. This theory was proved to be wrong, but Darwin resurrected it and scientists have swallowed the whole hook, line and sinker.
Scientists have had plenty of time to produce evidence that life can originate from non-life. Has any scientists ever observed such phenomenon in nature? Scientists can tinker with the genetic code, but even with all their combined intelligence they are unable to show us how a single ameba originated from non-living matter. Some day, perhaps, scientists might be able to replicate the generation of life in the laboratory from non-living matter, but if they do so, it will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that life is the product of careful design.
Then you made the astounding declaration that “My argument is not solely that a bad design indicates a lack of design. It is that a bad design indicates a lack of design.”
With this, you lost me. You must be living on a different planet. My logic does not allow for such a conclusion. When engineers trash a poorly designed artifact, no one would conclude that there was a lack of design.
If the thrash man finds a poorly written letter, manuscript, or book, he doesn’t conclude that the material was the product of the random forces of nature. The human genome represents to me the greatest evidence for design available in nature. Arguing that a drunk man was the designer is the greatest mistake a scientist can ever make. I hope you reconsider your careless statement.
Then you moved into metaphysics with your probing question: “What kind of god allows Mass Extinctions to occur on a regular basis throughout the geologic record?"
I thought that you wanted us to keep the discussion focused on a single topic within the scientific realm, yet you freely move outside of science where observation, experimentation, and replication is the rule of the game.
Why can’t we stick with the scientific problem at hand and postpone dealing with metaphysics after we have reached an agreement of whether the weight of the available evidence tilts the scale on the side of design or the lack of it?
It was you who originally suggested to Bryan that it would be a good idea to select a narrow issue and stick with it until an agreement was reached. I did like your suggestion, and I am trying to live by the rule you proposed. Can we follow it to see what the outcome will be?
Next you stated the following about the experience in Dover: “Intelligent Design cannot be divorced from the bible or at least religion. It was proven to be such in court.”
Do you have that much faith in court rulings? Have you forgotten the O.J. Simpson court case? The criminal ruling was in Simpson’s favor, while the civil court ruled that he was guilty. Given the monopoly of education by evolutionists who have being brainwashing the American mind for so long, can you trust what happened in Dover? I thought you would be wiser than that.
The Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is a just born baby, and you expect it to prevail in a fight with a heavy weight fighter like evolution which is nearly two centuries old? Let the baby grow, provide it the best food and care available, and eventually it may prove to be able to face Goliath.
Towards the end of your comments you asked the question: “So I can assume from your last line there that you posit that the designer created life 600 million years ago?”
The answer is: wrong assumption! I don’t know when life on this earth first appeared. The Cambrian Explosion seems to suggest that all the major forms of life appeared within a narrow limit of time. Besides, the alarming lack of significant erosion between layers supposedly millions of years old in the Grand Canyon leads me to suspect that the chronology advanced by evolutionists are probably off by millions of years. How many, I have no idea.
The most reliable dating method, carbon 14, is fairly reliable only for a limited number of years and it has to be calibrated against dendrochronology. I don’t know how old is life, and you don’t know either. Besides, this question has nothing to do with the question we are trying to solve: whether nature provides evidence for design or the lack of it.
Finally, you asked me the following question: “Is the “Intelligent Designer” a god, or not. If not, then what is it?”
Evidently, you have more interest in metaphysics than dealing with the scientific question we have been discussing. If the weight of evidence leads us in the direction of design, why would you be so concerned about metaphysics? I thought that a true scientist should have an open mind and follow the eivence no matter where it leads, even if it threatens to tear the evolutionist castle science has been building on sandy soil.
I’ll make a deal with you. Tell me: Are you an agnostic, and atheist or something else. If something else, can you elaborate? Are you and Adventist? Are you perhaps an Adventist teacher? If you answer these questions, I will answer your question about whether the designer I believe in is a god. Fair deal?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
I don't have a lot of time today (work calls) but I will get back to your responses, if I have a break. Meanwhile, I am not particularly eager to get into my personal life to deeply on a public forum. I have gone as deep as I have ever anywhere and still have my name attached to it at all. I will answer the question as best as I feel comfortable.
I am not an Adventist, I am "something else" that is a religion.
If that answer is insufficient, I will have to live without your answer. If it is sufficient (for the reasons stated), I would like to know the answer to the question regarding the Intelligent Designer. It matters to this discussion immensely.
Madden,
We don't need to know about your private life. But, if we're going to have a discussion, we need to know what your position is clearly in order to build bridges between where you stand and where I (and others stand) regarding worldview, big bang, etc. and what you consider credible evidence, etc. as well as to see if you follow the standards that you set for others consistently with your own worldview.
I am a full blown SDA creationist, but being SDA is secondary to being Christian and not adding or subtracting from the Bible (as well as someone who takes far more of the Bible literal than most conservatives you will meet, even to the extent that Bible economics are far better than capitalism due to MUCH research on the topic). Science is tremendously useful, but in so many documented cases, when logic or science or archaeology have conflicted with the Bible, with time the Bible is proven the accurate record in millions of cases. The conflict is caused by interpretations and biases, evidence not existing and people falsely assuming that this proves error (it doesn't, it just proves you haven't found the evidence yet), not the actual observable science, history. I take the Bible as it reads without allegorizing it unless the Bible makes it quite clear that that is what the author intended for the passage. If passages are metaphorical in almost any language, they give you clues about that in most cases. I don't see those kinds of clues in Genesis and none of the NT writers treated Genesis that way, including Jesus. Equally importantly, the alternatives to literal Genesis are far less convincing scientifically. But, I'm open minded and for example used to think the Big bang was completely irrational, now I think it is possible in certain ways, but it does have a lot of assumptions built into it. ID is in someways for me a compromising position and one that I'm not entirely comfortable with, but it's better than nothing.
Anyway, that's a bit about me, I'll share more if needed.
Bryan
Bryan
Have you noticed that J. always taunts with the phrase--creations accept the benefits of science but refuse to accept the science of evolution or something along those lines. The "science of evolution" is based upon chance and trial and error. Experimental Science is based upon given laws and expectations. The statistical test is always used to determine whether or not a result was due to chance or was reproducable and predicatable. If a chance occurance it is rejected.
It is obvious, the J. is a victim of Group-think. He is not willing to think outside of the little box he has created for himself and then blames that posture on all creationists.
Science is totally dependant upon the laws of nature--yet that postulate of evolution is a trial and error approach to adaptation. In fact, science is more enamored with laws that those adherants to the Ten Commandments. Imagine a scientist building a vessel to hold a gas without understanding Boyles Law, or the Laws of Thermodynamics, Or fool around with electricity without understanding Ohms Law etc.
How can NASA send a man to the space station without living within known laws of physics, chemistry, and time.
Outside of forensic science, a man finds a bone and wonders how it got there, when, and where did it come from and to what or whom did it belong. It is amazing how much one can "dig" out but it is also amazing how little of the whole that is.
The bueaty of both good science and religion is purposeful action. Why am I here--what good can I accomplish for my self, my people, my nation, my God?
Bad religion of a thousand years and more held the world in a dark age. The renaissance and the reformation gave science its head. We all are the beneficiaries of those revolutions--We all stand on the shoulders of giants in science and in
theology.
Good religion and good science respect the laws of God and the universe He created. Tom
"The reason is very simple. What is available for us to observe in nature is not the original design, but a copy of a copy of a copy going back 600 million years"
We also do not have any original stories told by people thousands of years ago that were much later incorporated into what we have as our Bible today. We have no originals to compare them with. Nor, do we know what the stories may have initially begun with. We do know that there are many similarities between Sumerian, Babylonian and other cultures that are remarkably alike with those in the Bible. Coincidence?
Trying to develop a rational explanation of origins is beyond the human brain. All must be based on what we can see and observe today, and compare it with the remnants of fossils, cave drawings, ice cores, and tales that have been told. All have stories of now extinct animals, gods that were in control of nature, and who is to declare the truth from the imaginations of the past?
Elaine
What ever, let us face it. It comes down to a belief system.
We have a hard enough time to figure out why we are here let alone determine where we came from!
Whether science or religion there are immutable laws.
You and I have beat three score and ten so let us rejoice.
Three great grandchildren are a blessing beyond anything I expected as I headed for a landing on D day on Luzon. I guess they called it S day. Tom
Lunch Break.
Nic Said:
The first comment which jolted me a bit was the following: “If the designer was trying to get things right, he was drunk at the time.”
I feel that this statement is definitely unfair for the designer, if there was one. The reason is very simple. What is available for us to observe in nature is not the original design, but a copy of a copy of a copy going back 600 million years, if we allow for the evolutionists estimates of how long life has existed on our planet.
So we have a copy of a copy of a person that changed and evolved a vestigial tail or any other vestigial parts that are remnants from some other creature?
Also there is no science that shows a Homo Sapiens that exists anywhere in the fossil record ~200,000 years ago much less 600 million years ago. There is lots of science that shows transitional fossils from before then that were not us.
In fact there is excellent and downright conclusive genetic and cultural evidence that an entire Non-Homo Sapiens group of human-like beings walked the earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7886477.stm
They even had culture. Your designer apparently forgot to mention that we weren’t alone. ;-)
Do you realize how unfair is for you to conclude that the designer was drunk when neither you nor I have access to the original design. The original design might have been without a flaw, but nobody can either prove or disprove this, which means that silence would have been more appropriate for you in this respect.
We have access to the transitional fossils, Neanderthal DNA, and to current Homo Sapiens. Which tells us quite well how that design got to here. Unless of course one disallows the entire fossil record for some strange reason, which I will not grant anyone.
Some years ago I was invited to present my views about this issue at a Sabbath School populated by a large number of Adventist agnostics and a couple of declared atheists. I decided to run an experiment with my computer. I took a beautiful and artfully created design and made a copy of it, then I took the copy and made a copy of it, and a copy of the next copy. By the time I had made approximately thirty copies, the picture was so degraded that I felt there was no use continuing.
Would it have been fair for me to judge the original artist on the basis of a copy of a copy of a copy going back 600 million years? This is why I told you that when I see a just born baby with all the organs in their respective places, I am amazed that the copy of a copy of a copy going back 100, 000 years, according to evolutionists, still looks so great in the majority of cases; this in spite of the fact that humans have been such careless in avoiding what is harmful to the human race.
We are judging the Artist from looking at the current copy, another similar but different copy (Neanderthals) both from morphology and genetics, and every copy we can find back to origin of our species. That is not the same as looking at only the latest copy. Not at all.
Next you appealed to the “Occam’s Razor” argument. I do agree that the Occam’s Razor rule makes a lot of scientific sense. The problem is that, like I argued above, we have no access to the original design, if there was one. DNA gets degraded pretty fast, and the fossils we have access to are not able to provide us access to the original design.
See the link I provided. We have genetic evidence (Neanderthals) that shows exactly how those copies have changed since a common ancestor. Hard to argue with that evidence, it’s the lab grade stuff creationists are so focused on.
Scientists have had plenty of time to produce evidence that life can originate from non-life. Has any scientists ever observed such phenomenon in nature? Scientists can tinker with the genetic code, but even with all their combined intelligence they are unable to show us how a single ameba originated from non-living matter. Some day, perhaps, scientists might be able to replicate the generation of life in the laboratory from non-living matter, but if they do so, it will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that life is the product of careful design.
Actually science has not had plenty of time to study this. Not at all. Only genetics advances in the last 20 years have been able to begin to really leverage genetics and even now its rapidly developing. We only sequenced a full genome within the last 5 years if I recall correctly.
In addition, geologists and paleontologists can observe large fossils in nature much easier than they can single celled organisms, which is what the origin creatures would most closely resemble. As such, you are literally expecting us to find a needle in a world seized haystack.
Fortunately, due to the rapid advances in computers, genetics, and other research, the searching of haystacks has been enhanced tremendously and I am confident that a solution will come forth that the creationists will compare to the bible and argue away. Suffice it to say though that your premise of how much time has been available for that line of inquiry is a little....erroneous.
Incidentally, there is a very cool and well funded program I hear that is working on the creation of life from RNA in a clay environment that provides the structure for cell vesicles, etc. Much detail isn’t coming out yet as the science is still in progress, but the research looks promising. As I said, only recent advances has made this line of research possible.
Then you made the astounding declaration that “My argument is not solely that a bad design indicates a lack of design. It is that a bad design indicates a lack of design.”
With this, you lost me. You must be living on a different planet. My logic does not allow for such a conclusion. When engineers trash a poorly designed artifact, no one would conclude that there was a lack of design.
Read my words carefully. I did not say it PROVES a lack of design, I said it INDICATES. A subtle yet relevant distinction.
Again, you cannot separate my entire line of reasoning there. It can indicate a lack of design AND evolution explains it simpler and better. One side involves an ethereal bad designer, or a designer that created a Homo Sapiens and allowed it to be genetically thrashed for 600 million years so as to obfuscate all scientific inquiry, or there was another ethereal designer that messed with the code, etc. etc.
or…….
Evolution happened and vestigial organs are perfectly explained. As are a whole host of other problems in biology. For example, we can follow the path of tribes of humans because we trace the evolutionary mutations as they moved around the planet.
Then you moved into metaphysics with your probing question: “What kind of god allows Mass Extinctions to occur on a regular basis throughout the geologic record?"
I thought that you wanted us to keep the discussion focused on a single topic within the scientific realm, yet you freely move outside of science where observation, experimentation, and replication is the rule of the game.
Why can’t we stick with the scientific problem at hand and postpone dealing with metaphysics after we have reached an agreement of whether the weight of the available evidence tilts the scale on the side of design or the lack of it?
It was you who originally suggested to Bryan that it would be a good idea to select a narrow issue and stick with it until an agreement was reached. I did like your suggestion, and I am trying to live by the rule you proposed. Can we follow it to see what the outcome will be?
I also said, “I digress” and got back on topic. You did ask for science, I thought it might be relevant in the ID discussion.
Next you stated the following about the experience in Dover: “Intelligent Design cannot be divorced from the bible or at least religion. It was proven to be such in court.”
Do you have that much faith in court rulings? Have you forgotten the O.J. Simpson court case? The criminal ruling was in Simpson’s favor, while the civil court ruled that he was guilty. Given the monopoly of education by evolutionists who have being brainwashing the American mind for so long, can you trust what happened in Dover? I thought you would be wiser than that.
The Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is a just born baby, and you expect it to prevail in a fight with a heavy weight fighter like evolution which is nearly two centuries old? Let the baby grow, provide it the best food and care available, and eventually it may prove to be able to face Goliath.
Actually ID is a rehash of an old argument called “God of the Gaps” which was proposed in the 19th century. ID is not only just born, I suspect it is a downright tricky old man full of guile.
I am not basing my opinions on the Dover case solely on the judges discretion (although he ruled quite correctly). I am basing it on What the ID “Expert witness” testimony SAID about ID.
Behe is THE current world expert scientist on ID. Here’s his testimony:
Questioner:… I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
So essentially, Behe answered my question. ID is theology, it’s about God. I again, would be suspicious of anyone that claims otherwise as I would be forced to think they were being disingenuous, at minimum.
I can get more damning testimony where that came from, I think you know I can. I don’t want to publish all of it here, but it can be found summarized in the judges excellent ruling based on what was said in the case. One can read it for onself.
I provided these articles earlier, but you can see the breakdown of ID and Behe including Dover here:
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/New_Republic_ID.pdf
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/Behe,%20New%20Republic.pd...
Towards the end of your comments you asked the question: “So I can assume from your last line there that you posit that the designer created life 600 million years ago?”
The answer is: wrong assumption! I don’t know when life on this earth first appeared. The Cambrian Explosion seems to suggest that all the major forms of life appeared within a narrow limit of time. Besides, the alarming lack of significant erosion between layers supposedly millions of years old in the Grand Canyon leads me to suspect that the chronology advanced by evolutionists are probably off by millions of years. How many, I have no idea.
The most reliable dating method, carbon 14, is fairly reliable only for a limited number of years and it has to be calibrated against dendrochronology. I don’t know how old is life, and you don’t know either. Besides, this question has nothing to do with the question we are trying to solve: whether nature provides evidence for design or the lack of it.
I am going to let this one go for now, with your permission, in the interest of brevity. Be sure to see my response to your inquiry as to my religion. I have my reasons for privacy and I will not violate them.
Tom, you and I are surely on the same page when it comes to age and the increasing enjoyment that comes with new generations. Unlike you, I have yet to be blessed with great grandchildren, but may still live to enjoy them. Who knows the future?
Serenity is also a blessing for which I am most thankful. The good health, particularly when compared to those my age or younger who are not so blessed. Why? Who knows, but it's enjoyable.
Every new day is there to explore and discover what lies ahead. Soon, I hope to be working full time, in temp. employment with the government. With laws against age discrimination, the ability to do the job is what counts. Time to produce again. Wish me luck!
Elaine, I certainly wish you more than luck--You have a lot to offer. Tom
J. explained and tested are two entirely different beasts.
Scientists are more law abiding than Christians. If a scientist breaks a law of nature--it may well blow up in his face in real time. But scientists, you claim, blow the laws of science to the wind in order to protect a hypothesis inpossible to test. In the meantime, I worship a Creator/Redeemer God in real time, which for me may be short.
Certainly in the range of carbon 14 or any other isotopy. Tom
Edward Humes author of Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America’s Soul will be at Washington State University next week to speak during the celebration of Darwin'w 200th birthday. I will be attending and will be sure to report on what his presentation covers.
Carlitas - Would love to hear a report from Humes' presentation!
Carlitas I am so jealous. If he's half as good a speaker as he is writer you are in for a treat.
His chapters on the actual Dover trial were riveting. He talks about how Behe was just systematically destroyed on cross-examination - so much so that word spread through the building and attorneys were coming in from other courts just to watch. Judge Jones later said it was the most effective cross-examination he had even seen in 25 years in the courtroom and thought it would be taught in law seminars for years to come.
Of course I just love this stuff so maybe I'm easily amused.
Hi Beth,
I am going more in depth into the Dover trial based on your statement, thanks!
Found here: http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html
Really interesting watching Intelligent Design be dismantled by the testimony of its biggest proponent!
A choice bit:
Q (Questioner). But it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the laboratory in two years, or a hundred years, or even in the laboratory that was in operation through all of human existence, could be produced over three and a half billion years? You have to agree with that, Professor Behe?
A (Behe). It's entirely possible, but we can only know if that is the case if we have, if we have experiments to back it up or calculations to back it up.
Q. Experiments and inferences, right?
A. That's right.
Q. And so you agree, something we couldn't -- that couldn't happen in two years, much better chance over three and a half billion years?
A. Absolutely.
and then there was a very long section, which I will edit to show how the argument went:
.....
Q. And I'm correct in understanding that you have not written any peer reviewed articles in scientific journals arguing that the immune system is in fact irreducibly complex?
A. No. My argument is in my book, that's right.
......
.....
Q. I'm going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system?
A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.....
.....
Q. And then you stated in the Darwin's Black Box that, "If the natural mechanism is to be accepted, its proponents must publish or perish."
A. I'm sorry, can I see that phrase?
Q. Yes, could you go to page 185 and 186 in the chapter "Publish or Perish"?
A. Yes. Okay, and what are you referring to here, sir?
Q. You stated in this book that on the subject of molecular evolution the advocates of the natural mechanism, the Darwinian mechanism, must publish or perish, correct?
A. I'm hanging up on the word natural mechanism. Where does that occur? I don't see that.
Q. The Darwinian mechanism?
A. Okay, Darwinian mechanism. Okay, yes, that's correct.
Q. You conclude the chapter called "Publish or Perish" by saying, "In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish," right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And then all these hard working scientists publish article after article over years and years, chapters and books, full books, addressing the question of how the vertebrate immune system evolved, but none of them are satisfactory to you for an answer to that question?
OUCH!
Again, when I read Behe's testimony I am struck by how duplicitous the proponents of ID appear to have to be to be to advocate for their theory! On a side note I was particularly amused to see Behe admit that multiple designers were indeed possible! It is so kind of them to allow for other religions like that. I can totally see Yahweh, Ra, and a whole of gods lining up to create each of an "irreducibly complex" design! I get it now! ;-)
J.
What a joke!
If all the God's lined up to do it and couldn't--explain how trial and error could! Every time a scientist confronts a problem of origine he or she just throws in more time--like a cook who doesn't like the taste throws in in thyme.
Mathematically, there just isn't enough time to create by change a protein let alone a human idea--imagine a human brain. Why don't we just face it both creationism and evolution are a subject for faith not science.
Since faith is a human faculty--it is subject to a lot of false assumptions and false starts that are laughable in hindsight on both sides or many facets.
Tom
Madden quoted Behe in the trial, but he did NOT include the whole quote...a prime example of cherry picking. Even before that, he hasn't dealt at all with the fact that it is completely irrational and grossly unjust to ban truth from any philosophy just because it came from that philosophy. That's again an ad hominem fallacy which Madden is himself indulging in. He would not like that standard applied to him (anything to do with Darwin is inadmissable no matter how scientific). Yet he is silent about the injustice of applying it to others. In addition, here's the a more lengthy version of the quote. Behe was talking about his PERSONAL belief..not what ID theorizes. He's speaking of his OPINION, NOT what ID theory proposes (and this incidentally is why I think ID is a compromise and not really best...but it is better than evolution by far):
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
A. No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)
It's worth noting that not all ID proponents identify the designer as God. For example, in 2004 UCLA neuroscientist Jeffrey Schwartz spoke in favor of intelligent design, and he identified himself as a "Buddhist Jew." The philosopher Antony Flew provides another notable example of an ID-proponent who is not a traditional theist. And I have other colleagues in the ID movement who are entirely agnostic about the identity of the designer. But for ID proponents who are traditional theists, like Behe, Nelson, Dembski, or Johnson, science is a way of knowing, and as a scientific theory, ID informs us that life was designed. Their view that the designer is God is something they wholeheartedly believe, but it comes from a knowledge source other than science; it comes from other ways of knowing -- from non-scientific sources of knowledge outside of intelligent design. Their views about the identity of the designer are their own personal religious beliefs and do not come from the scientific theory of ID. Phillip Johnson makes this distinction perfectly clear:
"[M]y personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects," Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy), 2007)
"So essentially, Behe answered my question. ID is theology, it’s about God. I again, would be suspicious of anyone that claims otherwise as I would be forced to think they were being disingenuous, at minimum."
A) So what if it was about theology. Science theories should not be rejected based on ad hominem fallacies.
B) The above proves that people who are not Christians also follow ID, thus invalidating your theory.
Already 4am so I can't write more...(several discussions going on...so sorry if I'm slow in responding at times...but must sleep now. But, here's a bit more on Antony Flew from a couple websites (the links at the end with interviews are highly recommended), one of the world's most famous atheists for decades and why he gave up on atheism and became a theist.
---
Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3
In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.
For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
--
One Of The World's Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind
CSC senior fellow Benjamin Wiker has had an opportunity to interview Oxford philosopher Antony Flew. Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher, held a number of distinguished teaching posts at British universities and had been a prominent atheist throughout the second half of the 20th century. Indeed, he was sort of Richard Dawkins before Dawkins, his name synonymous with staunchly materialistic beliefs.
Another CSC senior fellow, Jonathan Witt, first wrote on Flew abandoning his adherence to atheism back in 2004 in the Seattle Times. So this isn't exactly new news. However, Flew has now published a book explaining in more details his change of mind titled, "There Is A God." In it he explains his change as a journey into reason.
Flew told Wiker:
There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.
Asked how he views this Intelligent Source Flew responded:
I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.
Read the full interview here.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/29.80.html
A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/a-change-of-...
Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew (long interview, but Madden, I highly recommend you read this one and the others as well. Th)
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
Madden quoted Behe in the trial, but he did NOT include the whole quote...a prime example of cherry picking. Even before that, he hasn't dealt at all with the fact that it is completely irrational and grossly unjust to ban truth from any philosophy just because it came from that philosophy. That's again an ad hominem fallacy which Madden is himself indulging in. He would not like that standard applied to him (anything to do with Darwin is inadmissable no matter how scientific). Yet he is silent about the injustice of applying it to others. In addition, here's the a more lengthy version of the quote. Behe was talking about his PERSONAL belief..not what ID theorizes. He's speaking of his OPINION, NOT what ID theory proposes (and this incidentally is why I think ID is a compromise and not really best...but it is better than evolution by far):
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
A. No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)
It's worth noting that not all ID proponents identify the designer as God. For example, in 2004 UCLA neuroscientist Jeffrey Schwartz spoke in favor of intelligent design, and he identified himself as a "Buddhist Jew." The philosopher Antony Flew provides another notable example of an ID-proponent who is not a traditional theist. And I have other colleagues in the ID movement who are entirely agnostic about the identity of the designer. But for ID proponents who are traditional theists, like Behe, Nelson, Dembski, or Johnson, science is a way of knowing, and as a scientific theory, ID informs us that life was designed. Their view that the designer is God is something they wholeheartedly believe, but it comes from a knowledge source other than science; it comes from other ways of knowing -- from non-scientific sources of knowledge outside of intelligent design. Their views about the identity of the designer are their own personal religious beliefs and do not come from the scientific theory of ID. Phillip Johnson makes this distinction perfectly clear:
"[M]y personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects," Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy), 2007)
"So essentially, Behe answered my question. ID is theology, it’s about God. I again, would be suspicious of anyone that claims otherwise as I would be forced to think they were being disingenuous, at minimum."
A) So what if it was about theology. Science theories should not be rejected based on ad hominem fallacies.
B) The above proves that people who are not Christians also follow ID, thus invalidating your theory.
Already 4am so I can't write more...(several discussions going on...so sorry if I'm slow in responding at times...but must sleep now. But, here's a bit more on Antony Flew from a couple websites (the links at the end with interviews are highly recommended), one of the world's most famous atheists for decades and why he gave up on atheism and became a theist.
---
Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3
In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.
For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
--
One Of The World's Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind
CSC senior fellow Benjamin Wiker has had an opportunity to interview Oxford philosopher Antony Flew. Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher, held a number of distinguished teaching posts at British universities and had been a prominent atheist throughout the second half of the 20th century. Indeed, he was sort of Richard Dawkins before Dawkins, his name synonymous with staunchly materialistic beliefs.
Another CSC senior fellow, Jonathan Witt, first wrote on Flew abandoning his adherence to atheism back in 2004 in the Seattle Times. So this isn't exactly new news. However, Flew has now published a book explaining in more details his change of mind titled, "There Is A God." In it he explains his change as a journey into reason.
Flew told Wiker:
There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.
Asked how he views this Intelligent Source Flew responded:
I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.
Read the full interview here.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/29.80.html
A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/a-change-of-...
Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew (long interview)
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
Madden quoted Behe in the trial, but he did NOT include the whole quote...a prime example of cherry picking. Even before that, he hasn't dealt at all with the fact that it is completely irrational and grossly unjust to ban truth from any philosophy just because it came from that philosophy. That's again an ad hominem fallacy which Madden is himself indulging in. He would not like that standard applied to him (anything to do with Darwin is inadmissable no matter how scientific). Yet he is silent about the injustice of applying it to others. In addition, here's the a more lengthy version of the quote. Behe was talking about his PERSONAL belief..not what ID theorizes. He's speaking of his OPINION, NOT what ID theory proposes (and this incidentally is why I think ID is a compromise and not really best...but it is better than evolution by far):
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
A. No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)
It's worth noting that not all ID proponents identify the designer as God. For example, in 2004 UCLA neuroscientist Jeffrey Schwartz spoke in favor of intelligent design, and he identified himself as a "Buddhist Jew." The philosopher Antony Flew provides another notable example of an ID-proponent who is not a traditional theist. And I have other colleagues in the ID movement who are entirely agnostic about the identity of the designer. But for ID proponents who are traditional theists, like Behe, Nelson, Dembski, or Johnson, science is a way of knowing, and as a scientific theory, ID informs us that life was designed. Their view that the designer is God is something they wholeheartedly believe, but it comes from a knowledge source other than science; it comes from other ways of knowing -- from non-scientific sources of knowledge outside of intelligent design. Their views about the identity of the designer are their own personal religious beliefs and do not come from the scientific theory of ID. Phillip Johnson makes this distinction perfectly clear:
"[M]y personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects," Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy), 2007)
http://www.discovery.org/a/4306
"So essentially, Behe answered my question. ID is theology, it’s about God. I again, would be suspicious of anyone that claims otherwise as I would be forced to think they were being disingenuous, at minimum."
A) So what if it was about theology. Science theories should not be rejected based on ad hominem fallacies.
B) The above proves that people who are not Christians also follow ID, thus invalidating your theory.
Already 4am so I can't write more...(several discussions going on...so sorry if I'm slow in responding at times...but must sleep now. But, here's a bit more on Antony Flew from a couple websites (the links at the end with interviews are highly recommended), the world's most famous atheist for many decades, and why he gave up on atheism and became a theist. Madden, I HIGHLY recommend you read a LOT on why he changed to avoid wasting decades of life as he did. The long one at linked at the end is probably the best one for you to read.
---
Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3
In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.
For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
--
One Of The World's Most Famous Atheists Changes His Mind
CSC senior fellow Benjamin Wiker has had an opportunity to interview Oxford philosopher Antony Flew. Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher, held a number of distinguished teaching posts at British universities and had been a prominent atheist throughout the second half of the 20th century. Indeed, he was sort of Richard Dawkins before Dawkins, his name synonymous with staunchly materialistic beliefs.
Another CSC senior fellow, Jonathan Witt, first wrote on Flew abandoning his adherence to atheism back in 2004 in the Seattle Times. So this isn't exactly new news. However, Flew has now published a book explaining in more details his change of mind titled, "There Is A God." In it he explains his change as a journey into reason.
Flew told Wiker:
There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.
Asked how he views this Intelligent Source Flew responded:
I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.
Read the full interview here.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/29.80.html
A Change of Mind for Antony Flew
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/a-change-of-...
Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew (long interview)
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
Bryan
Bryan
Bryan
Hi,
I'm sorry about the above...somehow the computer multiplied my post 2 times...I don't understand why..and i can't edit it out since I wasn't signed in when I posted it.
Anyway, Madden is taking Behe out of context a LOT as I said above. Here are 2 articles by Behe on this subject which make some very good points:
A True Acid Test: Response to Ken Miller
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm
something from the end from Behe on Miller:
Let me be blunt--Miller always writes (or speaks) with the utmost confidence, even when experiments show him to be quite wrong. I would caution readers of his work not to be swayed by his tone, whose confidence never wavers even when the evidence does.
--
Behe answers Dover Judge
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:eftE7ASE0NQJ:www.discovery.org/scri...
Introduction
...In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science.
Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood. On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.
Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are initalics, followed by my comments.
Commentary (1) "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."
It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.
(2) "The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's."
The dualism is “contrived” and “illogical” only if one confuses ID with creationism, as the Court does. There are indeed more possible explanations for life than Darwinian evolution and young earth creation, so evidence against one doesn’t count as evidence for the other. However, if one
simply contrasts intelligent causes with unintelligent causes, as ID does, then those two categories do constitute a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of possible explanations. Thus evidence against the ability of unintelligent causes to explain a phenomenon does strengthen the case for an intelligent cause.
(3) "ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
To the extent that the Court has in mind my own biochemical arguments against Darwinism, and to the extent that “refute” is here meant as “shown to be wrong” rather than just “controverted”, then I strongly disagree, as I have written in a number of places. If “refute” is just intended to mean “controverted”, then that is obvious , trivial, and an injudicious use of language.. A “controversial” idea, such as ID, by definition is “controverted.”
(4) "ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. ... (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”)."
Again, repeatedly, the Court’s opinion ignores the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. If I think it is implausible that the cause of the Big Bang was natural, as I do, that does not make the Big Bang Theory a religious one, because the theory is based on physical, observable data and logical inferences. The same is true for ID.
(5) "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest))."
In its use of the word “cannot” the Court echoes the unfair strategy of Darwinists to force skeptics to try to prove a negative, to prove that Darwinism is impossible. However, unlike in mathematics or philosophy, in science one cannot conclusively prove a negative. One can’t conclusively prove that Darwinism is false any more than one can conclusively prove that the “ether” doesn’t exist. With this unfair strategy, rather than demonstrating empirical plausibility, Darwinists claim that the mere logical possibility that random mutation and natural selection may in some unknown manner account for a systemcounts in their favor
Much more at the link above.
Bryan
A couple more of Behe's comments that are good.
(9) "Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning: '[S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.... The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.'"
--
Well, that’s a fine prose summary of the theory, but there is precious little experimental evidence that random mutation and natural selection can do what the NAS claim they can do. As I testified, in the 19thcentury prominent physicists overwhelmingly believed in the ether, not because of positive evidence for it, but because their theories of light required it. The “ether,” however, does not exist. Nor do experiments exist that demonstrate the power of natural selection to make irreducibly complex biochemical systems, either directly or indirectly--proclamations of the National Academy notwithstanding. Again, children who are taught to mistake assertions for experimental demonstrations are being seriously misled.
(16) "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the“purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. ... Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed inthe two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails."
---
The Court has switched in the space of a paragraph from calling the argument for ID an “inductive argument” to calling it an “analogy”. That is a critical confusion. As I testified, the ID argument is an induction, not an analogy. Inductions do not depend on the degree of similarity of examples within the induction. Examples only have to share one or a subset of relevant properties. For example, the induction that, ceteris paribus, black objects become warm in the sunlight holds for a wide range of dissimilar objects. A black automobile and a black rock become warm in the sunlight, even though they have many dissimilarities. The induction holds because they share a similar relevant property, their blackness. The induction that many fragments rushing away fromeach other indicates a past explosion holds for both firecrackers and the universe (in the Big Bang theory), even though firecrackers and the universe have many, many dissimilarities. Cellular machines and machines in our everyday world share a relevant property — their functional complexity, born of a purposeful arrangement of parts — and so inductive conclusions to design can be drawn on the basis of that shared property. To call an induction into doubt one has to show that dissimilarities make a relevant difference to the property one wishes to explain. Neither the judge nor the Darwinists he uncritically embraces have done that in respect to intelligent design.
(19) "This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. "
--
The court implies that apprehending design is akin to judging if a piece of artwork is attractive — a matter of personal taste. Yet Darwin’s theory is widely touted as explaining the strong appearance of design in biology; if such appearance is just a “completely subjective proposition”, what is Darwin’s theory explaining? The Court neglects to mention that the “completely subjective” appearance of design is — in the view of the adamantly Darwinian evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins — “overwhelming”. I testified to that, to Dawkins’ proclamation that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, and to other similar statements. I showed the Court a special issue of the journal Cell on “Macromolecular Machines” which contained articles with titles such as “Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs, and Things”. If strong opponents and proponents of design both agree that biology appears designed, then the appearance should not be denigrated by Judge Jones as subjective.
20) "As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. (P-718 at 705)."
--
As I pointed out in my direct testimony to the Court, the Big Bang theory also was deemed less plausible by some scientists who disliked its supposed extra-scientific implications. I showed the Court an editorial in the prestigious journal Nature that carried the title “Down with the Big Bang”, and called the Big Bang a “philosophically unacceptable” theory which gave succor to “Creationists”. Because real people — including scientists — do not base all of their judgments on strictly scientific reasoning, various scientific theories can be more or less appealing to people based on their supposed extra-scientific implications. It is unfair to suggest ID is unique in that regard.
Regarding the below Madden,
1) Behe was thrown a stack of stuff that he was never given time to read and asked to give a judgement. THAT is quite unfair.
2) Evolutionists CONSTANTLY interchange micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They prove micro-evolution and then assume macro-evolution. That does NOTHING for the theory of Darwinian evolution in actual fact.
3) Evolutionist do NOT have any observable evidence of an immune system developing from scratch, etc. They have evidence that it adapts to meet new types of viruses, etc. That's what the system was designed to do if you study it carefully.
4) There is not duplicitousness..the IDers are having to work and try to gain credibility for their theory when the standard of justice is grossly unfair. It's not that much different from a slave going to court to try to get his freedom in a country where slavery is legal.
Bryan
Q. And then all these hard working scientists publish article after article over years and years, chapters and books, full books, addressing the question of how the vertebrate immune system evolved, but none of them are satisfactory to you for an answer to that question?
OUCH!
Again, when I read Behe's testimony I am struck by how duplicitous the proponents of ID appear to have to be to be to advocate for their theory!
Is it significant that the scientists in Europe and other countries never have such debates? Is ID soley an American invention? If so, why?
Elaine
I. D. is an invention to get something into the public school system other than evolution. It is a poor Diest concept. Tom
J Madden,
One of my favorite parts is when Behe describes an experiment that would actually test his hypothesis that the flagellum was irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. When asked if he had done such an experiment his reply was, "It wouldn't be fruitful."
I think just about just about every scientists' head exploded at that.
Behe is not stupid and I don't think he is the worst of the ID lot by a long shot. I think his testimony put a big shining halo around what is wrong with the ID movement though, making it obvious to the court and to most who followed it why the scientific community jumps up and down in protest.
Certainly there are those who insist on blaming "activist judges" and huge conspiracies but, in the end, ID simply had the spotlight really turned on to it and the results weren't pretty. Instead of marketing directly to a relatively scientifically ignorant public (which is a huge red flag right there - scientists don't turn to school boards for Pete's sake to get their early and untested pet ideas across), they had to make their case to a more knowledgeable audience and went down in flames.
Elaine
It is interesting to me that a scientist can look at Stonehedge and wonder who did that and why. Then they look at an ape and a man and wonder how did that metamorphosis occur. Or look at the universe and say wow that must have been some big bang!
Nobody it seems has the guts to say, I don't know. Tom
There's a huge difference between cherry picking, and excerpting a very long and obfuscatory legal document, which I TOLD YOU was edited.
I say obfuscatory meaning that Behe is trying so hard not to admit that he is using gods to "prove" his thesis that it is challenging to find out what he actually is selling. I really don't want to call him a liar, but he comes soooooo close to that it is hard to know what he actually IS saying. Fortunately if you read the testimonies you can see him get eaten alive.
If you don't like my editing read the doc for yourself. You will see a "scientists" trying to sell that which he refuses to buy himself.
The arguments are all vain on both sides. Neither has a clue on what really happened. The task and duty of man is service:
As a famous qhote would have it: " Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country!"
Our God given talents, honed by education and experience, are to be put to service to improve the lot of all mankind and the extenstion of dominion given at the creation!
Of the three great philosophic questions: Where did I come from" Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? The prime one is Why am I here?
It is to reach down and pull up!!! Let the dead past bury its dead! Tom
Pullleassse.
One side whips out an ancient text, declares it factual, and tries to shoehorn whatever scraps of data they can to fit the story using bad theology that even their own people cannot agree upon.
The other side has literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of hours of field and laboratory labor from trained professionals, libraries of reports and books, huge amounts of energy and effort involved in conducting a scientific inquiry into the subject following the rigorous scientific method to the best of their abilities. They have explored it from Antarctica to the North Pole, from East to West, to the depths of the bottom of the ocean and to the tops of the biosphere.
....and all he's got to say is "Neither has a clue on what really happened."
Yeah, well, to any objective standard whatsoever, only one side says "it has a clue" and has little or no effort or science for that matter to support it. Behe's pathetic attempt to salvage his reputation from a withering questioning as to why HE hasn't "published or perished" much at all shows it, and he's the supposed best you got.
Doesn't have a clue, indeed.
Beth wrote,
"One of my favorite parts is when Behe describes an experiment that would actually test his hypothesis that the flagellum was irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. When asked if he had done such an experiment his reply was, "It wouldn't be fruitful.""
I think just about just about every scientists' head exploded at that."
--
Yet another place of blatant misrepresentation (or superficial investigation). Something not being "fruitful" means that you can test it, but you wouldn't get any results helpful or "fruitful" to evolution. See excerpts below to prove the above accusation absolutely false from the trial transcripts.
Madden wrote, "reply There's a huge difference between cherry picking, and excerpting a very long and obfuscatory legal document, which I TOLD YOU was edited."
You can do editing in ways that correctly represent things or that completely misrepresent things. You deleted maybe intentionally just a few preceding sentences which would have made things very clear that Behe wasn't claiming that ID requires belief in God. That is a textbook case of cherry picking.
"If you don't like my editing read the doc for yourself. You will see a "scientists" trying to sell that which he refuses to buy himself."
I AM reading the document and Behe is doing extremely well. But, he's operating in an environment that can't even remotely be called objective or fair. There's an apriori bias against everything religious while there is every kind of imaginable support for Darwinism even though things like irreducible complexity are INFINITELY more testable than Darwinism....massive double standards.
Below are excerpts documenting your claims to be false.
"One side whips out an ancient text, declares it factual, and tries to shoehorn whatever scraps of data they can to fit the story using bad theology that even their own people cannot agree upon. "
Double standard again and false accusation to boot. The ancient text is not just declared factual...it has been documented as fact millions of times with all sorts of evidence. Certain parts may not yet have proof..but in almost every case where skeptics accused it of being untrue, with time evidence has proven the skeptics wrong. Evolutionists have many things they don't agree on. I suppose that makes it unscientific. And their attempts to shoehorn data are unequaled.
"The other side has literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of hours of field and laboratory labor from trained professionals"
A) Creation scientists have millions of hours of work as well.
B) The amount of time doesn't matter. The ptolemaic scientists had huge amounts of time involved in proving their theory correct. The amount of time does NOT prove that your theory is observable or true.
Behe hasn't published??? You are making it more and more difficult for me to believe that you are actually a trained scientist. He's published all sorts of things...and so have others, including evolutionists, on the idea that nature points strongly to the idea that it's been designed in NUMEROUS ways.
Excerpts from the Dover Trial
http://www.arn.org/docs/dovertrial/behe1_2005_1017_day10_am.pdf
Q. Now another complaint that we've heard in the
course of this trial is that intelligent design is not
falsifyable. Do you agree with that claim?
A. No, I disagree. And I think I further in slides
from my article in Biology and Philosophy in which I
wrote on that. If you get to the next slide -- oh, I'm
sorry. Thank you. You got that. In this, I address
it. I'm actually going to read this long quotation, so
let me begin.
Quote, In fact, intelligent design is open to
direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought
experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's
Black Box, I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was
irreducibly complex and so required deliberate
intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that
the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection
acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent
process.
To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go
into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a
flagellum under some selective pressure, for mobility,
say, grow it for 10,000 generations, and see if a
flagellum, or any equally complex system, was produced.
If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
Close quote.
… Q. And I just want to ask you a question about this
grow it for 10,000 generations. Does that mean we have
to wait 10,000 years of some sort to prove this or
disprove this?
A. No, not in the case of bacteria. It turns out
that the generation time for bacteria is very short. A
bacterium can reproduce in 20 minutes. So 10,000
generations is actually, I think, just a couple years.
So it's quite doable.
Q. Have scientists, in fact, grown bacteria out to
10,000 generations?
A. Yes, there are experiments going on where
bacteria have been grown for 40,000 generations. So
again, this is something that can be done.
Q. So this is a readily doable experiment?
A. That's correct.
Q. Sir, do you believe that natural selection is
similarly falsifyable?
A. No. Actually, I think that, in fact, natural
selection and Darwinian claims are actually very, very
difficult to falsify.
…In 1998, a man named David DeRosier wrote an
article in the journal Cell, which is a very prestegious
scientific journal entitled The Turn of the Screw, The
Bacterial Flagellar Motor. David DeRosier is a
professor of biology at Brandeis University in
Massachusetts and has worked on the bacterial flagellar
motor for most of his career.
In that article, he makes the statement, quote,
More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a
machine designed by a human, close quote. So David
DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed.
On the next slide, I quote a
paragraph from the article to show that Professor
DeRosier not only says it looks like a machine, he
treats it as a real machine, as a real machine, not as a
metaphorical machine.
… Q. Do sciences recognize evidence of design in
nature?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And do you have some examples to demonstrate that
point?
A. Yes, I do. On the next slide is the cover of a
book written by a man named Richard Dawkins, who is a
professor of biology at Oxford University and a very
strong proponent of Darwinian evolution. In 1986, he
wrote a book entitled The Blind Watchmaker, why the
evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.
Nonetheless, even though he is, in fact, a strong
Darwinist, on the first page of the first chapter of his
book, he writes the following.
Quote, Biology is the study of complicated things
that give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose, close quote. So let me just emphasize that
here's Richard Dawkins saying, this is the very
definition of biology, the study of complicated things
that give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose.
Q. Does he explain why they appear design, how it is
that we can detect design?
A. Yes, he does. And that is shown on the next
slide. It is not because of some emotional reaction.
It is not due to some fuzzy thinking. It's due to the
application of an engineering point of view. He writes
on page 21 of the first chapter, quote, We may say that
a living body or organ is well designed if it has
attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable
engineer might have built into it in order to achieve
some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing.
Any engineer can recognize an object that has been
designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he
can usually work out what that purpose is just by
looking at the structure of the object, close quote.
Let me continue with a quotation from William
Paley. Quote, he says, The inference we think is
inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker, close
quote. So he is inferring from the physical structure
of the watch to an intelligent designer.
Q. Is that a theological argument?
A. No, this is a scientific argument based on
physical facts and logic. He's saying nothing here
about any religious precept, any theological notion.
This is a scientific argument.
Q. Does Richard Dawkins himself recognize it as an
argument based on logic?
A. Yes, he does, and he goes to great lengths to
address it in his book, The Blind Watchmaker.
Q. What sort of reasoning or argument is this that
we're talking about, this scientific argument that
you're referring to?
A. This is an instance of what is called inductive
reasoning when we --
Q. I'm sorry. We have a slide here to demonstrate
this point?
A. Yes, thank you. Just to help illustrate this
point, I just grabbed an article from the Encyclopedia
Britannica online entitled Inductive Reasoning. And the
Encyclopedia Britannica says, quote, When a person uses
a number of established facts to draw a general
conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. This is the
kind of logic normally used in the sciences.
Let me skip the middle of the quotation and say,
It is by this process of induction and falsification
that progress is made in the sciences. So this William
Paley's argument, the kind of argument that, say,
Professor Padian made about bird feathers and so on are
all examples of inductive reasoning, and they are all
examples of scientific reasoning.
Q. This is the sort of reasoning that is employed in
science quite readily?
A. Yes. As the article makes clear, this is the
normal mode of thinking in science.
Q. Is that the sort of reasoning you employ to
conclude design, for example, in your book Darwin's
Black Box?
A. Yes, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that I
used in Darwin's Black Box.
… Q. Dr. Behe, is intelligent design science?
A. Yes, it certainly is.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because it relies completely on the physical,
observable, empirical facts about nature plus logical
inferences.
Q. And that again is a scientific method?
A. That is the way science proceeds.
Q. I want to ask you if you agree with this
testimony provided by Dr. Miller. He testified that it
is a standard scientific practice for scientists to
point to the scientific literature, to point to
observations and experiments that have been done by
other people in other laboratories, have been peer
reviewed, have been published, and to cite to that
evidence, cite to those data, and to cite to those
experiments in their arguments. Do you agree with that?
A. Yes, I agree completely.
Q. Is that what you have done, and intelligent
design has done in presenting its arguments?
A. That's what I have done. That's what the
scientists that wrote those books I showed earlier have
done. That's have a very common practice in science.
Tom, while I disagree that neither side has a clue, I do agree with you that these exercises by scientists don't address how we should live our lives. The work is important to our quality of life and, to a lesser extent, important to our curiosity but you stated it well - that there are more important things all together.
Having said that though, I do think the broader issue of keeping gov't from promoting one religion over another and the issue of what constitutes science goes well beyond the quibbles over evolution. And those issues are nothing to take lightly.
Comparing a watch or stonehenge to a tree or a star shows the total stupidity of attempting to compare them.
Even preliterate man understood growing seasons, harvests and the importance of the sun and rain for a productive crop. "Nature" was the answer for everything long ago. Men became inventive and designed various ways and methods, even rudimentary "machinery" to aid in producing better and larger crops. But they never had the slightest confusion about things over which they had little or no control, and those which they could affect.
Modern man looks for answers to everything and posits various theories. There are some unanswerable questions that will never be universally accepted.
Beth/Madden,
I don't know where you are getting your quotes from several times. I searched the links you provided as well as talk origins for any place that Behe said "It wouldn't be fruitful" in reference to experiments on irreducibility or ID as you alleged and that phrase didn't even exist in any of the transcript of Behe that I could find, neither in the defenses examination or on the prosecutions side. In fact I found the exact 180 degree opposite quote in the ACTUAL legal transcript as documented above. It certainly looks like you are making things up and putting them in his mouth when he never said those things. Please put references for your citations so we can actually document them as fact and not inventions.
Bryan
"Sadly though, evolutionists have gotten enough power to ban pretty much all discussion of creationist theories in mainstream journals. This is GROSSLY unscientific since science is supposed to allow all theories that have testable evidence and Bible science has FAR more of that than evolution does." So wrote Bryan Bissell.
I an only repeat what an acquaintance used to say -- Ain't it the truth." I'm fully aware of the grammar.
You have made, Bryan, a very convincing case regardless of the naysayers. Stay with it.
J Madden,
Thank you for your answer dated 12 February 2009 at 9:05. . Since our comments are getting longer, I will prefix the comments with either "Madden" or "Nic" to identify the speaker. [Obviously I don’t have your first name]
Madden said: “Also there is no science that shows a Homo Sapiens that exists anywhere in the fossil record ~200,000.”
Nic responds: I did not attempt to imply that Homo Sapiens existed for 600,000 years. [Please overlook the 600 million typo] The phrase “a copy of a copy of a copy” going back over half a million years should be understood in evolutionary terms starting with the first living cell all the way to Homo sapiens.
Madden: “In fact there is excellent and downright conclusive genetic and cultural evidence that an entire Non-Homo Sapiens group of human-like beings walked the earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7886477.stm
Nic: It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions without realizing that you may not have a golden parachute. You are relying on the interpretations of scientists who are sold on the unproven assumption that the theory of evolution is already a fact. Notice what the article you cited includes a serious disclaimer:
"There is no reason to believe they couldn't speak like us," said Prof Paabo. ‘But of course there are many other genes involved in speech and language, so there are many more studies to be done.’"
If those Neanderthals could speak, then my guess is they were humans who were not significantly different from modern humans. I would suggest that they were either humans or apes.
Madden: “We have access to the transitional fossils, Neanderthal DNA, and to current Homo Sapiens. Which tells us quite well how that design got to here. Unless of course one disallows the entire fossil record for some strange reason, which I will not grant anyone.”
Nic: I do not believe that Neanderthals represent a transitional type of fossils nor a link between apes and modern man. I have no problem with the fossil record, but rather with the interpretation assigned to it. The Cambrian explosion is a mystery no evolutionist has been able to unravel. All the major species of animals appear fully formed and clearly recognizable in the fossil record, with extremely few exceptions, as the animals we know today. If the theory of evolution is a fact, the fossil record should be littered with millions of transitional forms of life. They are noteworthy for their absence.
Madden: “Incidentally, there is a very cool and well funded program I hear that is working on the creation of life.”
Nic: I wouldn’t be surprised if scientist one day discover how to design a very crude example of a living cell from scratch—without the use of living matter. Nevertheless, do not forget that if scientists succeed in this endeavor, it will prove my theory that life is the product of careful design instead of the lack of it.
Madden: “Read my words carefully. I did not say it PROVES a lack of design, I said it INDICATES. A subtle yet relevant distinction.”
Nic: Thanks for clarifying this. This is encouraging. It seems like we are bridging the gap between my position and yours. Perhaps one day you will join me in this respect. As far as I am concerned, the evidence for design is so overwhelming, I do not foresee any chance of altering my view on this. I am sold on design.
Madden: “Actually ID is a rehash of an old argument called “God of the Gaps” which was proposed in the 19th century.”
Nic: As a serious attempt to study the idea of intelligent design as a scientific theory, the movement is still in diapers. We need to let it grow. We need to protect this new-born baby from the blood thirsty Evolutionary Dragon.
Madden: “Behe is THE current world expert scientist on ID. Here’s his testimony: Questioner:… I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct? Behe. Yes, that's correct.”
Nic: Behe’s response was his big blunder. It is the mistake I am trying to avoid. He should have kept his science clear from any metaphysical opinion he might have. Science should stick to its mission of adhering to observation, the analysis of the evidence available in nature, experimentation, and replication. Behe allowed to be dragged into the metaphysical realm and he fell into the trap which was set for him.
Madden: “I would like to know the answer to the question regarding the Intelligent Designer.”
Nic: You are asking a metaphysical question, and I am trying to approach origins from a strictly scientific point of view. What I observe in nature leads me to conclude that the overwhelming evidence is on the side of intelligent design. Design requires a designer, but nature does not provide a description of said designer. This is as far as science allows me to go. Whether the designer is a god or a martian is absolutely irrelevant to a strictly unbiased scientist observer.
Science fails to provide a clear picture of the designer or his character. Evidently, said designer must have had a predilection for life. Nevertheless, the picture is not quite clear, because suffering, predation, and death are in the way. Solving this enigma is beyond scientific observation. If you are interest in religion, then we can move from science to metaphysics, but then we would need to make a clear and unmistakable line of demarcation between science and metaphysics.
Of course, if we are going to delve into this foreign issue, then some knowledge of your background might be helpful. You did tell me that you are not an Adventist, but this doesn’t tell me very much.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Bryan,
http://www.arn.org/docs/dovertrial/behe5_2005_1019_day12_am.pdf
Read pages 99-106 for the entire context. Yes he most certainly does say it on page 105. For the record, I don't make things up.
Beth,
Thanks for the reference and I usually try to assume that people are honest until I have quite a bit of proof otherwise. The reason I couldn't find it is because it was misquoted. Behe actually said, "is not real likely to be fruitful" while you quoted him to say "It wouldn't be fruitful." If you put something in quotes, you really should not be changing any words at all as you did. That's why I couldn't find the quote. Try to be careful not to make that kind of mistake in the future. Below is the context and Behe's ACTUAL thoughts on the matter are that others have done experiments that didn't look promising and that he has numerous goals that he is trying to achieve and so he doesn't think it worth his time to spend time on something that didn't work for others. It is the critics who are supposed to be trying to falsify a theory. That's what usually happens in science. The proponents usually look for evidence that a theory is correct. Furthermore, I know of Darwinian scientists that have tried for 40 years to produce evidence of evolution on the macro-evolution scale similar to what would falsify ID and creation science and utterly failed even though they tried extremely hard. Here's one:
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
Behe knows this and doesn't think it worth wasting his time to repeat experiments that have failed many times in the past. Again it's not his duty to falsify his own theory. Scientists can do that and a few do, but mostly it's the critics who try to falsify a theory and the proponents who try to find evidence. So, Beth, why not get to work yourself on falsifying this :)?
Here's the context where Behe talks aobut another scientist who tried to falsify ID and failed.
Q. Professor Behe, you say right here, here is the
test, here is the test that science should do, grow the
bacterial flagellum in the laboratory. And that hasn't
been done, correct?
A. That has not been done. I was advising people
who are skeptical of the induction that, if they want to
essentially come up with persuasive evidence that, in
fact, an alternative process to an intelligent one could
produce the flagellum, then that's what they should do.
Q. So all those other scientists should do that, but
you're not going to?
A. Well, I think I'm persuaded by the evidence that
I cite in my book, that this is a good explanation and
that spending a lot of effort in trying to show how
random mutation and natural selection could produce
complex systems, like Barry Hall tried to do, is likely
to result -- is not real likely to be fruitful, as his
results were not fruitful. So, no, I don't do that in
order to spend my time on other things.
Q. Waste of time for Barry Hall?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Waste of time for Barrie Hall?
A. No, certainly not a waste of time. It was very
interesting. He thought that he would learn things.
And he did learn things. But they weren't the things
that he started out to learn. He thought that he would
be able to see the evolution of a complex system. And
he learned how difficult that was.
Here's another good quote that exposes the apriori commitments of both evolutionists and the tremendous bias of the American legal system at present which unfortunately Judge Jones had to follow (note that when Lewontin uses the term "science" he's talking about Darwinian evolution. I don't think there is the least bit of justification for conflating and equating science with Darwinian evolution. The two terms are like night and day":
Prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin (Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University) wrote:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
{"Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28; quoted at: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/FAQ/evolution.html. Additional sentence at the beginning included}
Now suppose I were to say, in public,
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between Christianity and atheism. We take the side of Christianity IN SPITE of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of peace and life, IN SPITE of the tolerance of the Christian community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, BECAUSE we have a PRIOR commitment, a commitment to belief in God. It is NOT that the methods and institutions of Christianity somehow compel us to accept a divine explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to supernatural causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce immaterial explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, Christianity is ABSOLUTE, for we CANNOT ALLOW materialism to stick its foot in the door.
This would not be accepted for a second by Lewontin and other scientific materialists. Clearly they have a rationalistic double standard: one epistemological standard for Christianity; another for naturalistic, materialistic science.
You have made, Bryan, a very convincing case regardless of the naysayers. Stay with it.
Posted by: Your Friend | 14 February 2009 at 10:52
--
Thanks, but this isn't even the tip of the iceberg yet :).
Nic,
You have some very good thoughts and arguments. The copy of the copy of a copy one is one of many good ones you've made. In addition, there's also the fact that if an artist designs something and a vandal defaces it and damages it, that distortion can not be attributed to the original designer. We have abundant evidence of vandals operating both on the human and the demonic level.
Keep it up!
It's unfortunate Madden refuses to tell us his philosophical beliefs. It's probably because he doesn't want the same standards applied to his beliefs that he uses to criticize others and is afraid of being found out using more double standards. It's SUPER easy to be a critic...esp. when you use logical fallacies and misrepresent others. That doesn't take any great skill. Applying standards consistently and fairly and in that way showing that your theory is better than others with observable evidence or very strong logic/inferences, etc. is what real science and logic is supposed to be...and that DOES take quite a bit of skill...but there are not many evolutionists or atheists who do that (and quite a few creationists don't either).
Bryan
Bryan
http://www.arn.org/docs/dovertrial/behe6_2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf
A) I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.
Q) It would be a waste of time?
A) It would not be fruitful.
Try searching the documents using "fruitful" and you'll see him say it in several ways, including how I quoted him exactly above (aside from the contraction which I am assuming is not a mortal sin here).
Beth,
OK...that quote is there. If you're quoting things, changing even a word or contraction makes it harder to find it, esp. for someone who is in a rush. So, please try to avoid that.
I don't think you have been trying to intentionally and terribly misrepresent people as Madden has. But still, your quotes have significantly missed the reasons for what Behe said. The reason Behe hasn't done experiments in this area is because like all scientists he has to set priorities on what's important and like most scientists, he is trying to find support for the idea of ID. There is MUCH work to be done and for someone who thinks it's critical, if you know quite a few experiments in that direction have already failed, why waste your time on doing more things in that area.
In the link above, Behe also says this:
"Well, I think someone who thought an idea
was incorrect such as intelligent design would
be motivated to try to falsify that, and
certainly there have been several people who
have tried to do exactly that, and I myself
would prefer to spend time in what I would
consider to be more fruitful endeavors."
THIS is the reason that he hasn't done experiments. Others have already tried and failed to falsify ID in that way. So, he doesn't see much point in wasting time doing what they have done when there are far more important ways to spend his time. If you read what people are really saying, it is often true that you will find the critics are not representing them accurately, some because they are intentionally dishonest, but others because they have some blinders of some kind on or have been indoctrinated so much that creation/ID is not scientific or rational that they just don't look very deeply and don't really see what is being said. I hope that you are the later Beth. Some here are unfortunately the first case though.
Bryan
This is a very complicated subject and for those munching the popcorn and following along here, I would just encourage you to either read the trial transcript if you have some background in science or read the book Monkey Girl which accurately, and more interestingly, explains what happened at the trial. Both of those are good sources for the minutia being argued here. The NOVA program "Judgement Day" is an excellent overview of the issues without getting into all the nitty gritty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
There are good solid reasons why Judge Jones ruled the way he did, even as a conservative, George W Bush appointee. He was recommended by Rick Santorum and he had considered a career in Republican politics. He is a Christian. His decision cost him and his family personally including needing federal marshall protection due to death threats. And yet he did the right thing and I admire that.
Beth
Of course the judge was correct in his ruling. Which in no way was an endorsement of Evolution. It was a statement that I. D. is a back door attempt at bring religion into the classroom of a public school.
His personal views as to origins had nothing to do with his
ruling. Nor was he or is he competent to rule on the validity of either proposition.
His ruling was in keeping with years of rulings on the issue.
He asknowledged that prior rulings held in this case.
The simple truth is that issues of belief are not subject to debate. They are open to review and due consideration, conversation, and serious discussion. If the rules of science were strictly applied neither proposition would pass. Tom
How can you have a real debate without a referee? You guys sure need one!
Here's the current score:
Madden: 15
Bryan: 2
Nic: 3
Madden has lost a few points by overreaching and showing an excessive polemic style. But his actions in this regard pale against those of his opponents, who also have made numerous logical and factual errors.
And no, I can't prove it, nor will I try. :-)
As follow-up, I'd like to throw out a few questions primarily to Bryan but perhaps Madden would respond as well.
Bryan, here are a few seemingly very important points for you:
1. Abiogenesis (vs. creation) being the point to prove rather than evolution.
2. Macro vs. microevolution not being confused.
3. You place great importance on the testimony of creationist scientists (or "scientists", depending on one's perspective).
Perhaps you might respond to these questions about the above points:
1. Suppose (just for the sake of argument) we all agree that life originated outside a natural process on this planet (either a designer/creator or an extraterrestrial source). Are you content?
2. I suspect that Madden might go along with #1 as a POSSIBILITY (though not by any means exclusively the only option), since if we had, for example, extraterrestrial sources of life ~3.5 billion years ago with subsequent evolution to create modern life forms, the fossil record, the gene sequences, etc., it would be consistent with the geological, genetic, paleontological, etc., data accumulated by millions of scientists over the past century or two.
3. I suspect that for all Bryan's concern about those who pit creationism against evolution instead of against abiogenesis, he is probably not comfortable with the idea of evolution from a cell 3.5 billion years ago, even if that cell was placed there by a designer or a meteorite. Am I correct, Bryan? If that is so, then I suspect the reason is because you couldn't reconcile that with a literal biblical reading (and you are an admitted literalist). So, then, in practice those who pit evolution vs. creationism are not making a logical error (comparing apples and oranges), but are simply recognizing that most of their opponents are not just creationists in the sense of the origin of a premordial cell, but are also opposed to evolution to the extent necessary to derive what we see in the fossil record and in the world today. The focus on abiogenesis is then a red herring. Sure, an interesting and important question, but not the primary one of concern to biblical literalists. For them, even if God were responsible for a primordial cell 3.5 billion years ago, followed by evolution, they couldn't accept that because it would contradict their understanding based on the Bible. It would undermine their understanding of the nature of man, of sin, of salvation. Is that where you are, Bryan?
4. On macro vs. micro-evolution, Bryan, please explain NOT IN TERMS OF OUTCOME but in terms of MECHANISM how these are different. Yes, down at the level of DNA and RNA, and then at the macro level of environmental stress/natural selection, how is the mechanism of macro evolution any different than micro evolution?
5. Bryan, how do you respond to the fact that Behe is an evolutionist? Or do you "pick and choose" from his writings and thoughts? That is, do you use his credentials as a scientist to argue your point for ID, but then ignore what his scientific background has led him to understand about the reality of evolution and an old earth etc.? Behe is not a young earth creationist believing in a recent 6 day creation. He says, "I am not a creationist". (Of course, you would argue against his use of the term in this way, since you think it should only be set against abiogenesis, but Behe uses the term as most of us do, I think, in accord with what I wrote above).
Here is a review from Publishers Weekly of his most recent book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism":
"With his first book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe, a professor of biology at Lehigh University, helped define the controversial intelligent design movement with his concept of "irreducible complexity." Now he attempts to extend his analysis and define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope. Behe strongly asserts, to the likely chagrin of young earth creationists, that the earth is billions of years old and that the concept of common descent is correct. But beginning with a look at malaria and the sickle cell response in humans, Behe argues that genetic mutation results in only clumsy solutions to selective pressures. He goes on to conclude that the statistical possibility of certain evolutionary changes taking place is virtually nil. Although Behe writes with passion and clarity, his calculations of probability ignore biologists' rejection of the premise that evolution has been working toward producing any particular end product. Furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the shortcomings of "Darwin's theory-the power of natural selection coupled to random mutation," but current biological theory encompasses far more than this simplistic view. Most important, Behe reaches the controversial conclusion that the workings of an intelligent designer is the only reasonable alternative to evolution, even without affirmative evidence in its favor."
Bonus question: If science is to be defined to include more than the materialistic explanations, then what is to prevent astrology from being science, or of the world being held up by Atlas, or of God holding the world in his hands (and that not being meant metaphorically but in actual fact, and that vs. gravitational fields)? What's wrong with science restricting itself to the material world and not excluding the possibility that truth might also reside elsewhere? i.e., perhaps the world DOES rest on Atlas' shoulders, but because we in science restrict ourselves to material explanations, we'll miss that truth, and that is OK since those are the rules we necessarily must restrict ourselves to to make progress in this endeavor?
RT
Did you ever contemplate the tension evolutionist create for themselves when they can predict with mathematical certainty the decay of Carbon 14, the annual journey of the earth, sun, moon, and stars, even the next appearance of Halley's Comet.
Yet at the same time, predicate quantum leaps of change in biology? Consistency in matter, time, and space, and inconsistency in life forms? Something never demonstrated scientifically: fruit flys are still fruit flys. Rats and mice are still rats and mice. Organic soup is still organic soup. J. is still fighting 18th century creationism.
Did you ever contemplate the suggestion that wings on a penquin are vestigial without observing their use under water?
The bottom-line is that neither belief system is subject to
testing or replication.
Winning a debate proves nothing except which contestant is the better debator. You score it one way--others may differ.
As one wag put it, if you laid all the scientists head to toe they would never reach a conclusion.
One side says: In the beginning God. The other side says: In the beginning a big bang! Neither side has seen God nor heard any earth shattering noise.
The issue will remain with us until the Universe collapses or the Parusia occurs. Either way, it is very likely by that time we will belong to the ages. Tom
No Beth. The subject is not that complicated. There is an unjust standard in our govt. that is 100% biased for evolution regardless of the evidence. Judge Jones had no choice to make the decision he did in the same way that a judge in America of the 1800s would have had to deny women the right to vote. Why do you believe the ridiculous fantasy that all govt. standards are right and fair when history shows this is clearly not the case. It doesn’t matter what Judge Jones faith is, his duty is to follow the law. And the law is grossly biased and unjust in this area and others. It doesn’t matter how interesting PBS’s video is. I watched much of Judgement Day months ago. It doesn’t even begin to deal with this basic fundamentally dishonest standard…that allows a faith based theory, evolution (with absolute undemonstrable faith in chance), to be taught without having to provide ANY observable evidence of macro-evolution and yet condemn the teaching of creation because it has faith in an intelligent creator. The founders of America would probably start a 2nd revolution if they could see how their principle of church and state has been so heinously perverted to ban the teaching of truth due to an ad hominem logical fallacy. Neither Beth nor Madden has even TRIED to address this fallacious foundation of the judges decision because they can’t and they know it’s fact. It’s absolute destruction of the search for truth to prevent ideas from being investigated just because of the origin of those ideas. School is supposed to be a place where you learn truth and there shouldn’t be limits on that. It should focus on ideas that are most helpful and useful to students. What students choose to believe is up to them. Separation of church and state means you don’t force people to believe as the govt does with methods of torture, prison, death, fines, etc. It NEVER EVER meant that you should not present the best and most important truths to people that will greatly improve their lives even on this planet (such as SDAs living 10 years longer than the avg. American because of following God’s health principles). To ban truth from religion from being taught is just a complete perversion of the constitution and those who support this are directly responsible for the loss of faith of many and for many who will be lost for eternity.
For those “munching popcorn”, I suggest you watch “The Case for the Creator” for a basic overview of the evidence for a creator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8372ks0raI.
“There are good solid reasons why Judge Jones ruled the way he did, even as a conservative, George W Bush appointee. He was recommended by Rick Santorum and he had considered a career in Republican politics. He is a Christian. His decision cost him and his family personally including needing federal marshall protection due to death threats. And yet he did the right thing and I admire that.”
Yes, he was a Christian. I can admire him for doing what he thought was right and that was to follow the law. But, it would have been far more moral of him to point out current societies tremendous biases and injustices as Martin Luther King Jr. and expose the way they have twisted the meaning of “separation of church and state” into something that our nation’s founders would revolt against.
Tom wrote, “The simple truth is that issues of belief are not subject to debate. They are open to review and due consideration, conversation, and serious discussion. If the rules of science were strictly applied neither proposition would pass.”
I agree that evolution is not observable, that abiogenesis is not and that creation is not. But, micro-evolution is and that gives strong evidence for creation being the accurate theory. There is much other evidence of creation from all sorts of fields. But, if there were a consistent standard, evolution could never pass it. But, I do NOT agree that issues of belief are not subject to debate. There are a number of ways to test beliefs also and prove them accurate or in error. Maybe not every belief…but a LOT can be tested and falsified.
Bryan
RT wrote:
“How can you have a real debate without a referee? You guys sure need one!
Here's the current score:
Madden: 15, Bryan: 2, Nic: 3”
RT,
This was good for a laugh to start my day with. Thanks. All of Madden’s evidence has been from micro-evolution and from making pretty pictures in homology. None of that is observable evidence of evolution and all of the micro-evolution links he cited are actually evidence that supports creation and can NEVER be justly or scientifically misconstrued to support Darwinian evolution (so you can move most of Madden's "points" into my column and Nic's column;). Furthermore, I haven't hardly BEGUN to present the evidence that supports creation. There is such a mass of logical fallacies and unjust standards at present and mispresentations and ridiculing false assertions, that it is useless to present evidence until these things are dealt with. So you're judgement is sort of like letting the prosecution give their case and judging before the defense gives their case.
BTW, what makes you an unbiased referee RT? Have you read/watched the best experts on both sides (on the creation side, that would be people like Veith..who is frankly far better than Behe in my opinion, since Behe mostly limits himself to basically one area, irreducible complexity, on the other side, people like Dawkins, Stephen Gould, etc.). Have you read on the major philosophical assumptions that evolution rests on from people like William Craig (Denton's book is also very good)? If you haven't or if you don't see the unjust standards that are prevailing, it's pretty impossible for you to be an unbiased referee. I frankly doubt if there is an unprejudiced referee in America these days. But, if I referee could limit himself to observable evidence, that would be helpful. If you're a person biased for evolution who doesn’t understand that micro-evolution supports creation, not evolution (as it seems from what you wrote), how could you possibly be a fair judge?
I’ll respond to the rest after finishing some other urgent projects I REALLY have to finish today. But, thanks for the laugh. The rest of what you wrote is quite a bit more serious though and I’ll get to it soon. But, you should know that I haven’t even hardly begun to present evidence for creation. I’ve been mostly dealing with fundamentally false and unjust assumptions, comparisons and standards that if allowed will give enormous bias to only one side. There isn’t the least bit of fairness or justice in that. We can’t even move on to the evidence until we deal with these misconceptions. Further, the testimony of scientists (on BOTH sides) is important. But, no matter how great they are, their claims must be checked and tested by whether they are actually observable. Anyone with sufficient intelligence can make pretty pictures and integrate fancy logic, etc. This doesn’t make it scientific though. And this applies to scientists on both sides of the issue. For example, on the dating issue, I don’t trust the methodology of either the evolutionists OR the creationists. Their models all rest on their apriori beliefs and their interpretations of the evidence will ONLY produce results consistent with their beliefs because of this. About the only dating methods I trust are historical ones based on very credible witnesses and even those are not perfect the farther you go back in history.
Bryan
P.S. Here's some more humor for your day:
What's under YOUR Hat?
"Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either–despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem.
'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing–no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...'
Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off.
Then they are off and away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."
Dr. D. Darling, "On creating something from nothing," New Scientist, Vol 151, No. 2047, 14 September 1996, p.49
Bryan
Resolved: God Created the Earth in Six Days. Now Debate That!
Resolved: The biomass we now see evolved over billions and billions of years from bites and pieces of inorganic compounds in a watery ooz. Now debate that!
Of course one side coould win on debating points yet neither side could prove how it happened by winning.
Evidence and potential for reproducability are lacking.
We can ponder, we can discuss, we can commpare ideas and observations, we can prove nothing. Tom
Tom,
I have an article on this very topic of how to test religious beliefs that I'll try to update and send you a few hours later. Yes, we most definitely CAN test religious beliefs and we should. I doubt that we'll ever be able to get 100% proof of how life began as well as many other things in history and science. But, we can most certainly look at the weight of evidence for competing theories, we can make predictions of what we should see if a certain theory is correct and then go and find out if we can see evidence for that and a whole range of ways to test theories from any philosophy and then decide which theory has the most evidence, the best track record, proven claims, most credible witnesses (and hostile witnesses), the most practical and beneficial results, etc. and then judge which one is most reasonable (which does require some faith no matter which theory you are arguing for). EVERYONE already does this to a lesser or greater extent whether they are atheist, evolutionists, unphilosophical scientsts, creationists, Christians or whatever. People MUST understand that ALL philosophies, including science itself, rest on assumptions, faith and axioms (which are all nearly equivalent). If people don't recognize this fact, there's not much point in going to next steps in a discussion. One of my main first objectives in this discussion is to help people to stop ridiculing people of faith because EVERYONE no matter what their philosophical viewpoint is in reality a person of faith. Once those with atheistic/evolutionary leanings understand that and once they give up their faith in enormously biased standards that can not in any way shape or form be considered objective or scientific and we establish fair standards of comparison, then we can move to listing the weight of evidence and judging which theory matches the evidence best.
Here's one good article on how to measure religious beliefs and I have an article of my own that I'll try to update and send a few hours later.
"The Tools for Measuring Religious Beliefs"
www.harvardhouse.com/Einstein_Method_Guidelines.htm
Bryan
To measure and to debate are two entirely different things.
Some will reject the tools as well as the object being measured. If one canot agree on the rules--then no debate. Tom
Bryan,
Not only haven't I responded to your assertion that there is an unfounded bias against creationism/ID, I haven't responded to any other assertion you've made either except to correct what I thought was an unfair accusation against my character.
I have to disagree with you that these issues aren't complicated. I think they are and some forums lend themselves to discussing them better then others. While the internet can work, it isn't ideal. And so it takes certain kinds of people who choose to discuss in certain ways for the conversation to be productive.
Like you, I have years of experience discussing these things and I can tell pretty early on if a conversation is likely to yield something of benefit (IMO) or not. I just don't engage when I think it won't. One can interpret that as not having a good "comeback" or not having any response but it wouldn't be accurate.
While I am always tempted to try and score points (probably more tempted than many truth be told) I am trying hard to focus on conversations that can bring about understanding and respectful learning. I am always sorely tempted to prove my "superior knowledge" but at the end of the day I may not have treated others with the respect and dignity they deserve.
RT,
Thanks for your comments dated 15 February 2009 at 12:50. I did not expect any credit from you, but I appreciate the fact that you did include me in you assessment. Since you did, I have some questions for you:
1. Who appointed you as a referee?
2. Are you an unbiased observer?
3. Are you perhaps related to the judge who ruled in the Dover case?
4. Where were you trained as a scientist?
5. What is your worldwide view?
6. What are your basic premises and presuppositions?
7. Would the defenders of the intelligent design theory accept you as an unbiased referee?
8. Unless you answer these questions to my satisfaction, I refuse to acknowledge you as an acceptable candidate for a referee position in this debate.
I am not asking that someone raise my score. What I do not agree with is the generous score favoring madden over Bryan. If I were to score these two participants on the basis of evidence and logic, I would favor Bryan over Madden. Let me cite a couple of examples, since my time for debate is extremely limited.
Actually, 150 percent of my available free time is spent on trying to get caught on reading what others have written. Most of my time is swallowed by Bryain's comments, which are beginning to look like the genetic code in lenght. They look like a black whole, which leaves me with little time to even try to respond. Don't take me wrong! He has produced some gems of gold.
Compare Madden’s treatment of the central issue in the Dover debate with that of Bryan: whether the designer is God. Heres is how they cited the exchange of question and answer in the Dover case:
*********
Here is Madden’s version and conclusion:
“Behe is THE current world expert scientist on ID. Here’s his testimony:
Questioner:… I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
So essentially, Behe answered my question. ID is theology, it’s about God.”
*********
Now campare Madden’s version with that of Bryan:
“Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
A. No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.”
*********
For the reader unacquainted with the entire exchange between these individuals it would seem that Madden’s conclusion was correct; nevertheless, when you read the expanded version cited by Bryan I get the opposite result. Notice that Behe repeated the “No” answer to every question posed to him. How can sometone conclude that the designer is "God" for Behe?
Behe answered with a “No,” “No,” and “No,” to each of the three question dealing with whether the ID designer was God, and he answered in the negative each time. From this, Madden concluded that the ID designer was God! Can you believe this?
How can someone gain my trust who either carelessly or purposely is willing to twist facts that are so patently visible to the unbiased observer?
Behe clearly stated that his ID theory had nothing to do with his belief in God. Many evolutionists do believe in God, but not from their study of science. Would it be fair to argue that their science has led them to a belief in God? It is clear from the exchange that Behe made a clear distinction between a designer and God. His science led him to posit the theory of a designer, and he did not even try to identify the designer with “a god,” much less with “God.”
I am waiting for Madden to make a frank admission that he did err in this case and should acknowledge this if he is interested in regaining my trust in his opinion as a careful and unbiased scientist and one who uses proper logic in his arguments.
I could say the same regarding the huge difference between microevolution and macro evolution.
If Madden cannot see this difference, I would say that he probably needs to se an optometrist. The entire evolution theory hinges on two factors, to my judgment: The lack of credible transitional forms which the fossil record should be littered with especially in the Cambrian Explosion section of the geologic fossil record, and the origin of life. Evolution has failed on those two basic counts.
I do believe in science and I am one of the millions of beneficiaries of what science has been able to achieve. Nevertheless, I tend to be agnostic regarding mythology and half baked scientific projects which lead nowhere.
The fact that Behe is an avowed evolutionist should provide credence to the scientific work he has done on behalf of the theory of Intelligent Design.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Frankly nothing has been achieve since the Scopes Trial.
Neither debate or law can decide the issue. It is one of faith on both sides, pure and simple. Since creationism carries with it the stigma of religion, it is banned from the public school system. The courts never decided the issue of true or false but simple within the constitutional provision of "congress shall make no law-----"
The odds goes to the evolutionist simply because it seems to be a catslysis for scientific inquiry, rather than the done deal of creationism. The premise may be wrong but as J. asserts the benefits grand.
Let us remember that faith, so called, can lead to martyrs, snake handers, David Livingstons, and Darwin look alikes.
Why not a generation of "Frankly sir, we just don't know! Dut I believe! And I work and live within that belief system."
As for me, Thanks be to God! Tom
I have come into the conversation late and this may have been covered already. Some people seem to think the ruling means that ID is not allowed to be taught, but I understood differently. Does the ruling mean that ID can't be taught at all, or rather that ID can't be required to be taught? The latter would mean that it is still allowed to be taught if the teacher wanted to teach it. Just that the teacher can't be forced to teach it.
Also, it's interesting to see what happens in America. We don't seem to have this issue in the public courts here in Australia.
Chris
It will probably take another round of courts to decide your question. As of the moment, it is generally conceded that it can not be taught at all. Of course, someone will test it. They always do. Did you ever study the prarie style of architecture of Frank L. Wright? You can spot it a mile away. Either the original or a student or admirer of the style. That is the postulate of I.D. It is a camel's nose in the tent, attempt. The courts rejected that course of action.
Which is fine with me. I don't want the public schools teaching the assumption of Mary, the State of the Dead, the difference between Alien and Proper Righteousness.
All of my education but eight years were in public institutions. I learned my theology at the table talk of my parents and at their knees at bedtime. Ethics, morality, and religion is a home school project. Tom
Good question Chris!
This ruling was only binding on the Dover school district. Officially, it said that the actions of the school board violated the Establishment clause which says that the gov't cannot promote one religion over another.
Other school districts could, of course, try and introduce ID but it is much less likely they will do so. To say that the trial did not go well for ID would be an understatement and other school districts would look closely at the ruling and the poor case that ID made for itself, understand why it was ruled that way, and think twice about doing it themselves. And even if the school boards don't have the ability to piece through the complicated nuances of it, you can be sure their attorneys will.
It has already been ruled that teaching creationism violates the Establishment clause and so this was a trial run to see if ID did too. The judge ruled that the way the school board behaved did violate it. Which is a subtle difference from saying you cannot teach it but for all practical purposes, that is the effect of the ruling.
Finally, it should be noted that this ruling (and every other) does not say ID or creationism for that matter cannot be discussed in the public school classroom. It cannot be taught as science but it can be discussed as philosophy, comparative religions etc.
Bryan,
Thanks for your comments dated 12 February 2009 at 1:42. You stated the following in your posting: “Nic, in terms of length, to extricate people from their illusions regarding creation science, sometimes lots of evidence is the only way to do that. But, I will try to provide more links to articles which people should read.”
Providing links to book-length material represents good thinking. I believe that blogs like this one is mainly for the quick exchange of ideas and arguments, and not for information which goes on for 20, forty or sixty pages with no end in sight. If I were in charge of Spectrum, I would set a limit of seven pages of material per posting, with a warning the moment a poster exceeded this limit.
Most participants do not have the time to wade through extensive material, no matter how relevant or how important it might be. Providing a link to material which runs for several pages is a much better approach. It is true that most readers will not click on the links you provide, but it is also true that if your postings are extremely long, most readers will skip entirely everything you have written.
I am sorry it took me this long to respond to your comments, but I was desperately trying to read everything you had written. I did find a good number of valuable information, but it was extremely frustrating wading through a lot of material I had already read from other sources, or sources readily available through the Internet.
The main purpose of a blog is the rapid exchange of ideas and arguments. For me the best debater in history was Jesus Christ. As I read the Gospels, I discovered that Jesus had to respond to critics on a daily basis, and most of his answers were rather short. None of them were the length of your postings. He never tried to overwhelm his opponents with a plethora of arguments and information. He even said on one occasion: “I have many other things to tell you, but you are not ready to receive them.” [The paraphrase is mine]
Had Jesus Christ wanted to impress his hearers with his extensive knowledge, he could have written the world most complete encyclopedia of knowledge and this would have made him famous for ages to come. Instead, he wrote on the sand, and the wind erased everyting he had written. He opted to write his most valuable lessons on the hearts of his hearers with the kind of life he lived.
I did find many gold nuggets in your writings, but unfortunately, they were buried in mountains if minutia, and I suspect that most readers probably missed them. You did state more than once that you had stayed awake til 5:00 A.M.preparing your comments. Bear in mind that most readers are not ready to stay up that late to read and digest what you have written. Any material which is not properly digested is likely to cause indigestion.
I hope these comments will not offend you, since they are well meant. By the way, I spent seven years teaching English as a Secomd Language in Argentina, South America, several decades ago. What is the age level of your ESL students?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Bryan,
What you stated on 12 February 2009 at 5:56 is worth repeating: “"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."
Bryan,
On 12 February 2009 at 4:50 you made the following comment: “I take the Bible as it reads without allegorizing it unless the Bible makes it quite clear that that is what the author intended for the passage.”
That is true; nevertheless, we need to consider the context and the internal evidence when interpreting Scripture. For many years I had the privilege of participating in a SDA Sabbath School which included two avowed atheists, half a dozen agnostics, and many evolutionists. This forced me to read Genesis over again and again.
One morning the person in charge of the lesson was the late Dr. Richard Hammill, a former president of Andrews University. He was talking about the apparent discrepancy between the two stories of creation found in Genesis. One of Hammill’s former students asked him the following question: “How come you never told us about this discovery of yours when I was your student at AU?” To which he responded: “I didn’t want to rock the boat.
This experience forced me to rethink my understanding of the story of creation. The taught crossed my mind that, Moses had the habit of prefacing his most important pronouncements with statements identifying the source of the information he was transmitting to the people. The context clearly indicated that what he was conveying to the people of Israel had come as a result of a direct encounter with the Lord. He had received the information directly from above.
I then noticed that both stories of creation we find in Genesis do not indicate the source of this information. If Moses had received the details of how creation had taken place, common sense would suggest that he would have said something like:
“While I was taking care of the sheep in the desert, the Lord revealed to me the steps he had taken in the creation of this world.” That is the way I would have reported an encounter with the Lord through a visionary experience, and this is the way the prophets reported their visionary experiences in the Old Testament.
The O.T. is full of expression like “Hear the word of the Lord,” or “Thus said the Lord,” or “While I was in vision.” Such expressions are absent from the story of creation. Should we not take this into consideration when we attempt at interpreting what the Bible has for us?
Given these facts, I concluded that the two stories we find in Genesis 1 and 2 are probably not the result of a direct revelation from God nor a visionary experience; but rather the product of oral tradition going back all the way to Adam and Eve, who had had at the beginning a direct face to face communication with the Creator.
They lived for nearly a thousand years, and had plenty of opportunity of sharing what they had learned directly from God about the creation event. This is why I am not concerned about the little details which might present a problem for us like the creation of the sun, the moon, and the stars, all apparently as one event in history.
Jesus himself combined the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and those related with the end of the world into apparently a single event in history. Should I make the mistake of concluding that the end of the world took place in 70 A.D.? I believe that the universe is much older than our planet. I do not believe in a single event of creation with a Big Bang. If God is a Creator, he must have been creating since times immemorial, and he will probably continue to create new worlds in the future.
World renowned artists and musicians never stop using their creative talents as long as they are blessed with life and good health; and God, if he in fact exists, must have a good supply of both. Of his Father, Jesus said: “My Father works and I work as well.” [My paraphrase.] I am convinced that science will never figure out the true age of the universe. Calculating the rate of expansion of the universe will never reveal the correct age of the universe we inhabit.
Quite often, I like to use the following illustration: Suppose we see a car accelerating on a highway, and we do know the rate of acceleration. Using this information we could determine when the car started. This is true, provided there is no driver behind the steering wheel. The moment we allow for a driver in the car, the fact that at this moment the car is accelerating at a certain rate is totally irrelevant as to the moment in time the car started. The driver is able to control both the speed of the vehicle and the rate of acceleration, and no scientific knowledge can help the observer to determine when the driver started on his trip.
The moment we allow for a Creator, all bets are off as far as the age of the universe is concerned. I am convinced that, instead of a Big Bang, we should be positing the existence of a huge number of Bangs. Both scientists and those defending the Genesis literal reading of the creation event need to adopt a more humble approach to the interpretation both of science and the revealed truth we find in the Bible. Ellen White used to say: “Only God is infallible.” I like this. It tends to keep us humble.
If you are interested in what I have written about Genesis, here are some Internet links for you:
In Search of the Origin of the Creation Story
http://sdaforum.com/test/page103.html
The Origin of the Creation Story
http://sdaforum.com/page39.html
Understanding Genesis
http://sdaforum.com/page198.html
Adventist Educators Ponder Impact of Intelligent Design
http://sdaforum.com/page171.html
The Big Bang & Creation: One Event or Two?
http://sdaforum.com/page48.html
How fundamental is a Six-day Literal Creation Week?
http://sdaforum.com/page61.html
Darwin & the Spontaneous Generation of Life
http://sdaforum.com/page81.html
Understanding Genesis
http://sdaforum.com/page229.html
How fundamental is a Six-day Literal Creation Week
http://sdaforum.com/page61.html
You have the links, but you are free to take advantage of them or else ignore them; but,please, don’t stay till 5:00 A.M. reading and responding to the material and arguments contained in them. You need some sleep. Do what the native Indians of Peru do when pressed with unfinished tasks. They say: “Tomorrow the sun will shine again.”
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Tom and Beth,
Thanks for the practicial insights.
I agree that religion is involved in ID. Religious principals permeate science - as science reaches for truth. Unfortunately, different truths conflict.
Evolution (at least its abiogenetic assumptions) is in disguise for atheism. Wish more people could spot that from a mile away. Richard Dawkins testifies that atheism is the only natural scientific conclusion.
Obviosly, some just don't want to recognise the Creator. If evolution (specifically its assumption of abiogenesis) was scrutinised just as much as ID has been, wouldn't that reveal it is also pushing one religion above other religions? Now, can you imagine that getting a fair hearing in the current climate.
Chris,
On 16 February 2009 at 10:20 you stated the following: “I agree that religion is involved in ID.”
Yes, the defenders of the Intelligent Design movement can be found among individuals of diverse philosophical persuasions. Nevertheless, neither creationism nor evolution can lay a claim to a monopoly on the ID theory. Bryan pointed out in his posting dated 13 February 2009 at 6:57 the fact that the members of the intelligent movement included deists, evolutionists, agnostics; and also Buddhists and Jews. A pure form of the ID theory is divorced from any particular brand of philosophy.
It is based on the notion that scientific evidence for design requires a designer, without identifying who said designer is nor making any attempt at assigning a specific character to said designer. Said designer is miles away from the God described in the Bible: a benevolent Creator searching to re-establish his close connection with those he has created; a designer who is not even close to the God of Deism, who takes no active role in the lives of those he created.
Actually, the ID designer could be a member of a more advanced civilization somewhere out in space. This is the reason said designer has a special appeal for some evolutionists, because it does not involve someone humans have to eventually give an account tp for their actions.
This is what the Dover judge failed to recognize. Had he been able to understand the true nature of the ID theory, he would have ruled differently. The true identity of the intelligent movement is divorced from a particular metaphysical view. It does not require a belief in a Creator God who is deeply concerned about those he brought into existence and to whom all human beings will have to render an account for their moral actions. The fact that Creationists have jumped on the ID bandwagon does not give them a monopoly of this philosophical view.
You also stated that “Richard Dawkins testifies that atheism is the only natural scientific conclusion.” In this, Dawkins is terribly mistaken. An unbiased approach to the evidence we discover in nature leads to the logical conclusion that design requires a designer. The possibility that the universe and the life we find in it might have been the result of a happy coincidence is so remote that for all practical purposes it must be discarded as a viable scientific option.
The evidence for design is so compelling that it led Anthony Flew to the need to accept the ID theory as the most logical explanation for human life and the fine tuning of the universe.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Tom,
Regarding your observation dated 13 February 2009 at 9:45 which went as follows: “It is interesting to me that a scientist can look at Stonehedge and wonder who did that and why. Then they look at an ape and a man and wonder how did that metamorphosis occur. Or look at the universe and say wow that must have been some big bang! Nobody it seems has the guts to say, I don't know.”
Great argument! Nevertheless, I would have ended it with the following statement: “Nobody seems to have the guts to say: it must have been the work of an intelligent designer.”
Bryan,
On 14 February 2009 at 1:06 you reminded us of an interesting confession made by Richard Dawkins. You cited him acknowledging the fact that the study of biology gives us the appearance that living organisms have been designed for a purpose. Well, if scientists are compelled to recognize what seems to have been the product of design, it is simply because life is in fact the end product of design.
The overwhelming evidence is on the side of design instead of a lack of design. For me the most impressive evidence for design is the human body. To negate this evidence requires a faith which defies the strongest scientific evidence ever imagined.
Francis Collins, the man in charge of the human genome project confessed that it would take over 30 years of non-stop reading to go over the entire DNA sequence. This represents billions bits of information which have to be in a specific order to produce a normal baby. Yet this astounding feat has been taking place for thousands of years but evolutionists are not impressed.
If those scientists involved in the SETI project were to receive a coded message from space a tiny fraction of the DNA in length, they would be jumping of joy for having discovered evidence of intelligent activity coming from outer space. This represents such a double standard that gives science a black eye. The defenders of evolution claim that science is the objective observation and analysis of evidence; when in fact the best human specimens of biased scientific judgment are found inside the halls of science.
Bryan,
Thank you for the information you provided us in your 14 February 2009 at 4:05 posting and for describing the context for Behe’s statement regarding any attempt to falsify the ID theory as "not real likely to be fruitful." When read within its proper context, it does not suggest that the ID theory is not subject to falsification, but rather that Behe had no interest in trying to engage in spinning the wheels for something doomed to fail.
I agree with you that attempting to falsify the ID theory is not the task of the defenders of the intelligent design, but rather the job of those who believe that this scientific claim is false. Why try something that has been tried before and did fail miserably. Anybody who believes that the ID theory is flawed, is welcomed to try to falsify it, as you suggested. Thanks you for helping us understand what really took place in Dover!
Bryan,
Thank you for your encouraging comments dated 14 February 2009 at 6:25. I firmly believe that science has been extremely unfair with the designer responsible for life on our planet. If life has existed for millions of years, then the fact that the major forms of life are still in existence and thriving speaks volumes on behalf of the original design. It is unfair to blame the designer for what seems to be evidence of defective design like suffering, predation, and death.
What we observe today is a copy of a copy of a copy ... going back millions of years, according to the defenders of the theory of evolution. When we look at nature, we are not observing the original design, but what remains of the original design, a design which has been suffering the ravages of time, the onslaught of the deleterious effects of degradation, and the possible intervention of someone who has been messing up with the original design.
We should not ignore at the same time the human factor. Every time I purchase a new car, the dealer gives me a car manual which tells me how to keep the vehicle in optimum state of performance. If I ignore said guidance, and my car fails to reach its peak performance potential, it would be unfair for me to complain to the manufacturer for its alleged defective design.
Think about how careless human beings have been with their bodies, and how the long-term results of abuse must have affected the original design. This leads me to conclude that we might be responsible in a great measure for the alleged defects in design we observe in nature.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
"All of the above" makes it abundantly clear that humans are quite able to believe whatever it is that they want to believe for whatever reasons they want to believe it. Lest the reader construe that as a criticism, let me hasten to add that this, in fact, may be one of humanity's better "permanent operating characteristics".
Nic,
I understand what you are saying. But, the philosophy of science is not taught at highschool level. At least it wasn't for me. Neither was it taught in the engineering and science degrees that I have done. I know of it now, after much discussion on this very topic of ID.
If people understood how religious science is, religion might claim some territory back. My point is not to deny the scientific merit or otherwise if ID, but rather to point out the religiosity of evolution.
We can't have it both ways, we cant say that evolution requires faith while ID is not religious. This is a double standard that we should not take.
Chris
You are correct. Evolutionary "science" is completely based on a belief system and so is I.D. Both sides accept observational crumbs to bolster their "faith". To these eyes and this mind to see order is to see intelligence. Even the Chaos theory has an order to it. Traffic lights are regulated by it. Tom
Very important Point there Chris. Most have not done anything in the philosophy of science area which is most unfortunate. But, I do not think at all that there is no way to prove things as some think here and that belief is just relative. A lot depends on what you mean by proof and how consistent standards of proof are across different fields. For example if we are talking about 100% observable proof, 90% of our history will have to be deleted from the books as well as mountains of other accumulated knowledge. But, there should be standards that rule out ridiculous things such as spontaneous generation (which is just a simpler form of evolution actually) unless they can demontrate that they happen. And there ARE standards that are fair and consistent that can convince those who are honest about the evidence. The WEIGHT of evidence is what is the key point, not 100% proof. We can't even prove that are senses are observing things correctly. So, 100% proof is pretty much an impossible standard and will result in the destruction of much knowledge that we are pretty certain is true. But, if you go with the weight of knowledge from a variety of areas, set up fair standards instead of the grossly prejudiced ones we have in some areas now and try to get rid of as many assumptions as possible...truth can be found in many areas, including religious belief and people can be persuaded by it. This is something I strongly affirm and will try to give some examples soon.
Anyway, I'll respond to RT, Bet, Nic, Tom and others Wednesday evening (Wednesday morning American time). I just have a lot of classes to teach today and some other things I'm trying very hard to complete that are time sensitive.
Have a good day!
Bryan
ALL good scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Not necessarily falsified, but they must be scientifically falsifiable. I think falsifiability is a good example of one of science's philosophical limitations. And that is meant to stop a lot of invalid theories being accepted as scientific.
Now, this works both ways. For evolution to be falsifiable, then ID is provable. And for ID to be falsifiable, then evolution is provable. This is profound, well it was for me when I realized it.
The falsification of evolution is ID.
The falsification of ID is evolution.
If they want to say that evolution is scientific, then they are admitting that ID is scientifically provable.
If they admitted ID as science, would that really be a win for us creationists. I don't believe so. Because the whole argument smacks of reinforcing the wall between science and religion. That wall is erected on a double standard, that both sides seem to use.
If we accept evolution as science, then we accept that it is provable. The proof of evolution requires field work with a time machine. It can't be done satisfactorily with any theorizing, or in a lab.
I reject the double standard. I rejoice in faith.
Many of you posting to this discussion are arguing in favor of Intelligent Design. I would like to pose a question to you. My question is simply a question, not the taking of a position in the debate.
Mathematics is the foundation. Physics is built up from there and physicists start with sub-atomic particles and make atoms. The chemists then take over and make molecules. Then the biologists jump in and make proteins and cells and organisms. Yes I know that is very simplistic and not historic. But it's good enough for me to pose my question.
You have been applying the Intelligence and the Design at the level of the biologists making organisms. Have you thought of the possibility of applying it instead, say, at the level of physicists making sub-atomic particles?
Bob
You make a giant leap beyond science. Bilogists have not taken molecules, made proteins, processed those proteins into cells, or made even the simplist organism. They have not even reconstituted a DNA. The best they have done is link ameno acids into long chain proteins. They have fed proteins into simple organisms which organims have built colonies of like organisms. Environmental stesses may create immunities or differing metabolic changes, yet always within kind.
Mathematics is the purest of all sciences and at the same time the most precis of philosophies--Yet it remains a far cry from Revelation.
Science of all types agree that the universe is ageless. yet physcists making sub-atomic particles have yet to achieve more than nano seconds of life for such particles, no matter the energry they direct into the collision.
Man is a long long way for creation--as intelligent as he has become.
I. D. (creationism) postualtes an intelligent beging with the power of many magitudes beyond man to both create and to sustain life in the most complex and variety of forms.
Let us rejoice that man can culture skin cells into colonies to treat severe burns and other wonderful aids to life and health. But to create life is yet beyond man's capacity.
One must read the fine print--every scientific paper ends with more study is needed, which simply means send more money!
Or less I quit--I got my PhD--let the next poor slob try to prove me wrong. Tom
Tom
You misunderstand my question which would mean it was not well posed. I was not taking any giant leaps. It's not about what scientists have done. I'm asking whether you (and others promoting ID) have considered proposing that the I of ID maybe did the D part starting at the level of sub-atomic particle physics instead at the level of biological organisms.
Tom,
In your response to Beth dated 14 February 2009 at 4:04 you stated the following: “Of course the judge was correct in his ruling. Which in no way was an endorsement of Evolution. It was a statement that I. D. is a back door attempt at bring religion into the classroom of a public school.”
I have some questions for you. Scientists are investing sizable sums of money on the “Searching for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence” [SETI] project. Suppose one day they detect a coded message coming from space claiming that the senders of this message are responsible for the introduction of life on planet earth, and that they would like to open a channel of communication with us.
Would it be permissible for scientists to respond to such communication from outer space? Would it be a violation of the separation of church and state to inform our high school students of such exchange of communication with extra terrestrial intelligence?
Have you analyzed the real objective of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Was its intent to declare God persona non grate in our schools and institutions while giving evolutionists the absolute right to indoctrinate our children with the assumption that positing the existence of an intelligent designer is unscientific when the overwhelming evidence point in the opposite direction?
The “Declaration of Independence” states that "All men are created equal." Notice that it does not say “All men have evolved equally.” Would it be wrong to quote this statement to our students in our public schools? Would it be wrong to suggest to them the significant implication of such a statement in relation to the theory of evolution? Doesn’t the idea of being “created equal” imply that we are the product of design instead of evolution?
We have on our money the inscription: “In God we trust.” Would it be a violation of the separation of church and state to remind our public school student the implication of this fact? If science is correct that we are not the product of intelligent design; then, for consistency sake, should we not delete this inscription from our basic medium of exchange, and also delete from our Declaration of Independence the statement “All men are created equal”?
I have reviewed our U.S. Constitution, and can’t find the phrase “separation of church and state” in it. Can you help me find it? If it is not in the U.S. Constitution, then why do we revere this mythical wall of separation between church and state? All I can find is the following declaration in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Can you help me decipher the correct meaning of this document?
*********
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
*********
Where in this document is the idea that any evidence for an intelligent designer should be ignored in the high school curriculum? Since when following the evidence for a designer has become an establishment of religion? How about the establishment of non-religion in our schools?
Why is it legal to present all the real and imaginable evidence for the lack of evidence for design, but illegal to consider the overwhelming evidence for design? The most dramatic evidence for design is present in the DNA code.
Billions of bits of specific instructions which are arranged in proper sequence so that a normal baby results as a byproduct for said coded information. This is biological evidence. Take some of said genetic information out or out of sequence and a flawed human being is the result, or perhaps a monster. Why is it wrong for a teacher to discuss this scientific evidence with their students?
Given what we know about the complexity of life and the fine tuning of the universe, why is it that our science teachers have the right to indoctrinate our students with the idea that we just got lucky for the fine tuning of our physical laws and for the amazing living organisms we are surrounded with. We are talking about billions and trillions of lucky coincidences. Is this evidence for non-design credible?
If a man wins the lottery twice in a row we would begin to wonder. But if the same individual were to win ten times in a row, wouldn't we begin to look for evidence that the system has been rigged? But suppose the same man were to win the lottery a trillion times in a row, would we conclude that his winning is the result of sheer luck?
Considering all this, how can you argue that “the judge was correct in his ruling. Which in no way was an endorsement of Evolution. It was a statement that I. D. is a back door attempt at bring religion into the classroom of a public school”?
To my imperfect judgment, the Judge in the Dover case was totally biased in favor of evolution and ignorant of the true scientific evidence available at the disposal of unbiased scientists who are willing to observe nature free from the illogical and unfair constraints imposed by evolutionists who have had so far exerted a monopoly on our educational system at the expense of taxpayers, the majority of whom do believe that the universe and the life we observe on it are the result of intentional and intelligent design.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic
It is obvious to one who believes in a God from Everlasting to Everlasting with creative powers that intelligent beings (sinnless) exist on other planets and in other galaxies. Since sin entered this world it should also be obvious to Christians that God has placed a quaratine on this planet.
It is off limits to all except: God, man, and Lucifer and his angels.
That proposition limits the what if's a whole lot.
According to American (U.S.A) jurisprudice the Judge was correct in his ruling. No matter his personal views. A judge is bound by the law, not his personal agenda. If you or I disagree with the rules--we must attack the law, not the judge. Tom
So Nic, are you suggesting then that the US gov't really should be promoting God? Which one I wonder? My view of the Christian God, your view, the Hindu's view, the Pope's view, the pagan's? Which god? Or gods?
We can agree that the scientific establishment is hostile to ID and to creationism. We can also agree that it is not receptive to using supernatural explanations for natural processes. That does not mean it is trying to rule out God period BTW.
The reasons why it is doing this are important. Seeing it as a conspiracy against God and truth will only keep the attorneys happy.
Nic,
I hear what you are saying. It is extremely biased here in Australia as well. And I agree, that should be addressed somehow. But I don't necessarily think that teaching ID as science is the answer. ID seems to me to only be using gaps as evidence - which can fall over for example with the arch principal. I think arguments about the coherent nature of the universe are much much stronger. These are distinct from although supportive of ID, and address the philosophy of science directly, and put science into it's place. To my mind, ID is watered down to squeeze it into the limited definition of science that is pedaled at us. I would rather see a more rigorous teaching of the philosophy of science, teaching students critical thinking in the scientific arena. My point is that ID by itself does not address the currently popular but incorrect definition of science, so ID is not the real solution to the problem as I see it. ID by itself could actually enforce the 'double standard' further.
Maybe of interest, in the Australian Constitution - Section 116 - "Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion"
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
We don't have God written on our money, or phrases like 'created equal'.
I went to some public state schools where we used to repeat the Lord's Prayer every Monday morning, while others I went to were a LOT more secular than that. One of my kids public day-care centers actually says grace before they have their lunchtime meal. These public schools seemed to me free to choose to do that. I don't know much about law, but the way I read it is just that it is the commonwealth that can't make any 'law' 'establishing' either way.
On the other hand. There is a lack of 'equal rights' talk in our constitution, and as a country we do have some shame on our public record in relation to indigenous peoples.
Anyway, the truths are self evident to me, and I didn't need the state to tell me that God is evident everywhere. And I do support the idea that the imbalance needs to be addressed somehow.
By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen. Hebrews 11:3
Bill D.
Chris, you wrote:
"Now, this works both ways. For evolution to be falsifiable, then ID is provable. And for ID to be falsifiable, then evolution is provable. This is profound, well it was for me when I realized it.
The falsification of evolution is ID.
The falsification of ID is evolution."
I think you have made a logic error here. You are presenting a false dichotomy. You said the apple was green, I said it was red. You think that by falsifying "the apple is red" you will prove that the apple is green. But that isn't so. (In fact, the applie may be yellow).
The importance of falsifiability lies in the manner of proof. One can falsify a hypothesis with a single counter-example. Proving the positive isn't so easy.
Bryan, Nic:
I'm glad I gave Bryan a laugh! But Nic, you are too serious, asking my credentials to be referee, etc. Even Bryan came back in a later paragraph and asked if I wouldn't be a biased referee. OF COURSE I'm not setting myself up as referee of your debate! (I haven't the time, for one thing, nor the patience). I think Madden has bailed out of this discussion (I said he was a smart guy!), so you two can split the remaining points however you like. Consider my tongue-in-cheek comment a humorous way to say, "I agree with Madden on most points." But maybe you should also consider it a test of whether you two are truly literalists. You passed the test! LOL
But just to continue the fun while answering Nic's questions (since he seems overly concerned with knowing someone's background before he'll even consider significant discussion), I'll take a stab at them below:
1. Who appointed you as a referee?
[It was by natural selection]
2. Are you an unbiased observer?
[No. I don't believe in mythology, including the myth of unbiased observers].
3. Are you perhaps related to the judge who ruled in the Dover case?
[Yes indeed! We share the same ape as a relative. Sadly for you, so do you].
4. Where were you trained as a scientist?
[In classrooms, laboratories and workplaces]
5. What is your worldwide view?
[I belong to the "earth is round" view that is unpopular amongst those who take seriously the Bible "as it reads"].
6. What are your basic premises and presuppositions?
[God, if He exists, is Love and Truth. As such, He wouldn't seek to deceive me with misleading evidence in nature. His love will prevail even if I make a mistake by trusting the natural evidence and it turns out to be deceptive or my best thinking on it, and that of other scientists, turns out to be wrong].
7. Would the defenders of the intelligent design theory accept you as an unbiased referee?
[No, not anymore than they accepted the Dover judge as unbiased. As with you guys, the only unbiased referee would be one who agreed with you. When you KNOW you have the truth, all other opinions are presumed to proceed from bias].
8. Unless you answer these questions to my satisfaction, I refuse to acknowledge you as an acceptable candidate for a referee position in this debate.
[I'm heartbroken!]
Now that we've gotten that behind us, I hope you'll take the time to succinctly answer the questions I posed previously. (Bryan, looking forward to your post tomorrow).
RT,
Can you not see the context of what I am saying?
There either is teleology, or there is not.
ID says there is, evolution says (assumes/suggests) that there is not.
These are mutually exclusive positions.
There is no in-between.
This is where the issue is that I was trying to get at.
If you want to use different definitions of evolution which don't seem to be at objections with teleology, then I might not have any problem with those definitions.
But Darwin himself laid the framework for the falsification of evolution. ID (although not called such) is actually part of his theory - if you don't like my definitions, read his work on how he said it could be falsified. And you tell me your interpretation of a scientific falsification of the theory of evolution.
So the way I understand it, is that the hole in the theory of evolution is that it can't be properly falsified, in a scientifically testable environment. So, rejecting ID as science is actually removing that part of Darwin's scientific theory of evolution.
My conclusion is that evolution is a deficient theory, in terms of proper scientific standards.
Nic above you seem to suggest that evolution states DNA, which has to be precisely ordered, just came about randomly. There is a common misconception about how evolution works that I think you are bringing up here.
There isn't any evolutionists out there who would disagree that there is no way we could have just randomly been put together in such a complex way. Like the example of monkeys typing randomly and somehow coming up with Shakespeare. Impossible and they would agree. What many people don't understand is that mutations may be random but selection is not. In other words, give those monkeys typewriters and let them type randomly (mutations) but save what comes closest to Shakespeare (natural selection).
Say I wanted them to type the word Hamlet. Anytime they typed those letters in any order those letters would be saved, then the Ha would be saved and maybe the le, then the Ham etc. until you have Hamlet. By saving what works, the amount of time needed to come up with the word Hamlet is quite reasonable. Part of the research evolutionists are doing is testing how long it takes for certain things to evolve using random mutation and natural selection.
This is an imprecise illustration because it is more teleological than evolution appears to be but when you substitute writing Hamlet with fitting into your environment, that is how evolution works. Mutations are random, (pecking keys) but natural selection (among other mechanisms) decides very nonrandomly what is saved.
So yes, it is ridiculous to think of our DNA coming together so precisely by luck. Another creationist favorite is, "Can a wind blowing through a junkyard make a 747?" Of course not and evolutionists would agree.
RT,
Perhaps I should have been more precise. In the context of the contention between ID vs evolution, seems to revolve around Irreducible Complexities. As well, to a lesser degree to conclusions of teleology.
I do realise that ID talks about other things, and so does evolution. But in the context of this area of contention, they are actually the falsification of each other.
Charles Darwin himself said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (1859) On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. page 189, Chapter VI
This is precisely how Darwin said his theory could be falsified. But, if the scientific establishment have come to a consensus that Irreducible Complexities are not scientifically testable (there is always the arch principal). As evidenced by their rejection of ID as scientific. Then the scientific establishment has also rejected the fact that the falsification of evolution is scientific.
You have criticised me of a logical fallacy - a false dichotomy. It's a strong criticism. I would really appreciate it if you could show that you understand what I am trying to say, as well as how you disagree.
Chris, I don't think the scientific establishment has rejected ID on the basis of irreducible complexity not being testable. I think it is on the basis of the designer not being testable. As for irreducible complexity, that is a notion put forth by Behe that is not universally accepted, with many scientists holding that those examples he gave of IC only APPEAR IC because we do not yet have the mechanism of their evolution described, but that this problem can in principle be solved and will be. The fact that some of Behe's book examples have now been explained and mechanisms for the evolution of the seemingly IC examples have been found, the IC argument is considerably weakened. K. Miller describes the evolution of some of Behe's IC examples in his book.
RT,
So, you do agree with me that the IC argument is weak. As I already acknowledged, the arch principal is its logical downfall.
What grounds was the designer rejected on?
ICs are the predictions, the tests that are meant to confirm the designer hypotheses. As one of the arguments go by supporters of ID. All part and parcel - I don't understand how you can separate them as much as you do. I understand the rejection by the scientific establishment includes rejecting the logic that ICs are evidence of a designer.
They are rejecting both the hypotheses and the test of that hypotheses. In fact, rejecting the logic in the tests is the ONLY way to reject a hypotheses.
Behe termed IC, but Darwin actually explained it as the falsification of his own theory. Darwin admitted he did not know of any examples, you seem to agree. He said his theory would "absolutely break down". I suggest that He was very wrong, because IC is not rigorous enough to falsify evolution.
In fact, I go further, I suggest that evolution is not scientifically falsifiable.
I've heard it said about DNA building blocks, that if they were different accross species then it would falsify evolution. The truth is that evolution would find a way to explain that anyway. Because that does not really utlimatley address the core of the theory of evolution. (Even if they like to use it to strengthen their position.)
I don't know if you have addressed my point at all. You argue about my terminology. So, can you please tell me in your own terminology, what is the scientific falsification of evolution?
Sorry guys,
Still not completed with urgent things I need to do here... but I'll definitely respond Friday evening/Saturday. Just a couple quick things for RT.
A) Do you believe there is a God? Why or why not briefly?
B) You made a comment about the bible/Christians teaching a flat earth. That's a gigantic straw man and is clear evidence that you are uncritically believing atheists/evolutionists accusations about the Bible that have been debunked LONG ago without actually checking to see if it's true.
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
C) You accused me of being literalist. I'm proud to say I'm guilty as charged in terms of trying to believe the Bible as the authors meant it. That means much is literal but some can be metaphorical and it's usually not that difficult to tell the difference anymore than it is for us to tell the difference in our modern culture. I do a lot of work with translations and I know very well the difference between word for word translations (sometimes called literal) and thought for thought translations. I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd because the literal translations OFTEN miss the intentions of the author. But, even in thought for thought translations, you can't take something that an author wrote clearly literally and distort it into something metaphorical. And Nic, yes that does include Genesis 1 and 2 which can be reconciled. My professor actually LIKED to rock the boat and actually gave us an assignment as undergrads to figure out how to solve the problem (as well as other assignments to read Karl Marx, Freud, Stephen Gould and other opponents of Christianity so we would know the arguments from the critics themselves and not watered down, weakened versions of them). We'd all discuss what we found and thought before the professor shared useful ways to deal with them but not avoid the hard questions or think that we had all the answers to every problem. But, no worldview, NOT ONE has the answers to all problems. We would be nearly gods if we did and it's unreasonable to abandon one solid world view which can answer numerous valuable questions about life and with MASSIVE amounts of proof for it's accuracy (Christianity) for one that is still struggling to provide any kind of observeble proof of it's claims (evolution and atheism). Here is a link to a basic answer on reconciling Genesis 1 and 2 which is just one of several good ways to reconcile them, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html and there are others.).
Sorry I can't write more now, that was already too much, but have to stop myself :). More later :).
Bryan
Good questions Chris, I think you are getting at some really interesting issues there.
I'm not RT but I'd like to tackle what I think you are saying.
Falsification is perhaps a nice catch-all phrase that is used to describe what science does but dig a little deeper and it isn't as important in practice. What is most important is, does the theory describe better than any other explanation what we actually find? Can it make predictions that are subsequently validated? And (where falsification comes in) is it possible to find things that would show it to be an inaccurate description of what is happening and do we find them? To be considered science, it must be falsifiable even if, in practice, the kind of research done around it doesn't target that.
As I understand it, the overall core of evolution is common descent with modification. Everything that is alive came from a common ancestor. That is what is considered the "'fact" of evolution. Everything is related because everything had a common ancestor.
This overall core of evolution can be falsified by finding living creatures which do not fit onto the branching tree that symbolizes common descent. They might not fit because they appear way out of order in time or because they do not share similar genetic patterns. Finding a rabbit in PreCambrian layers is an example of the first, finding a complex creature using something completely different from DNA as its genetic building blocks would be an extreme example of the latter.
I think a true proving ground of evolution came after the field of genetics took off. Here was an opportunity to really study the specific ways we are related or not related beyond morphology. Common descent with modification could easily have been destroyed by genetic work. How? By an accumulation of data that shows no pattern in our relatedness. The fact is that genetic work shows what you would expect to see if we all came from a common ancestor.
It's true that one finding that doesn't exactly fit can be explained away unless it is an extreme example. Even one extreme example doesn't necessarily falsify the entire theory. One rabbit in the PreCambrian is most likely a hoax. Finding even a few mammals there though would be a big problem. And overall, finding creatures out of place in the fossil record from where you would expect them if common descent was true would absolutely falsify it. Accumulation of things that don't fit cannot be explained away.
I think it is valid to say that evolution has been supported as a theory more on the basis of its explanatory power and that it fits what we see, and less on the basis that attempts to falsify it have failed. This is hardly unusual or different in how science is practiced in other areas though. Evolution is not playing by different rules.
And there have certainly been opportunities for it to be falsified and will continue to be so. Every time a new fossil is found, every time we study the genetic patterns of creatures, it is possible that something will be so out of place that it cannot be explained by common descent. The fact that this hasn't happened says something about the strength of the theory. In fact, that is the basis of any robust scientific theory. It explains what we see, it offers predictions that can be acted on, and it can be falsified but so far hasn't been.
Beth
If we evolved who needs salvation? The turn of the Nineteenth Century was "in every way and in every day I am getting better and better'. The last 109 years would more than suggest that was self delusion.
Yes we came from a common source. A divine Architect, Designer, Builder and Redeemer. Why should we not see similarities in species to species? But certainly you must agree, that man, at the moment, at least has dominion--within the limits that Christ our New Federal Man has allowed--natural forces of weather, tides, and earth movements aside. I await the Parusia with great longing--the frailties of age keep coming in geometric proportions. Tom
I'm surprised at how confident of themselves some respondents seem. It's a non-trivial problem that I think requires a little more self-doubt. :) I say this as someone who *wants* to believe both creation *and* evolution, because I identify very strongly as both a Christian and a scientist.
Unfortunately, there are a *lot* of poor creationist arguments out there. When we teach those to kids, it does them a great disservice because we're setting them up for a fall. I think we often violate Einstein's dictum of "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I have several questions on both sides of the debate, but I'll just mention a couple here that I don't think have been discussed above:
- Why should there be any "line" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? What would such a line consist of?
- If there was no literal creation, that implies no literal Fall. Would there then be any need for Calvary?
Pogo, great questions. I'm just adding a thought to the last one. Do we need a Fall story to know that we're fallen, i.e., that we sin and need a higher power?
It seems to me that often the reasoning that lies behind the strongest defenders of Creationism lies in the worry that if we Christians lose the six days as science then other things will unravel. Thus, I think your question about the Fall helps us to think about how those stories function: haven't they always pointed to deeper truths and are not the Truth in and of themselves?
"If there was no literal creation, that implies no literal Fall."
Yes, that is the implication from the premise presented.
However, it is only those who accept a particular account of several creation stories; and postulate a "Fall," a term that cannot be found in the OT, but is a superimposition from the Christian era, that both define the Creation and Fall as literal accounts.
These stories were man's inept attempt to explain the origins of his world through his perspectives. In those early stories, much like contemporary literature, there were god(s) compared anthropomorphically who were not omniscient and who became angry, acted rather irrationally and no reasons were given other than the god(s) had more than human power to act.
Why do we not believe the other origin stories? Have we chosen the one from the Bible because it sounds more plausible, or only because of the Judeo-Christian heritage we were given by birth?
The other cultures have stories of great events that have similar meaning to them, yet Christians often categorize them as the tales of a simple people who had great imagination. Why is the Bible story so much more plausible and true when it is filled with giants, nearly millenniarian peoples, talking serpents and donkeys? A god who could rain down fire and part the seas? Does that sound so different from others?
Creationists are the most avid micro-evolutionists of them all. If you doubt it, just go to a dog show.
Did anyone read an entry from me, defending the Genesis story?
I think I made it abundantly clear, that it is a story from
the viewpoint of an observer on earth.
Yet I have no doubt that God can speak and it will either stand fast or fall according to His Word and intent.
The sum of Christian theology is based upon the Covenant of Redemption--The Lamb Slain fron the Foundation of the World.
What God created, He love enough to redeem it at great cost to Himself. For that I praise God as both my Creator and my Redeemer.
It is quite a laugh that ardent SDA's will defend an eisegetic view of Rev. 14: 6-and take such a cavalier view of Rev. 4 and 5.
Christ introduces Himself during His incarnation as the Great I Am. He introduces Himself to John the Revelator as the Alpha and Omega--the beginning and the end.
By faith I accept His annoucements and His salvation. Genesis one and two are stories from a human point of view. Revelation is from a divine point of view. Tom
I think I can succinctly summarize the problem with creationists, by quoting a reply I made at Pharyngula (slightly sanitized to fit this forum). The first line is a quote from a creationist:
Relatedness IS NOT proof of phylogeny!
Yes, you being related to your parents, and possible siblings, could just be an accident.
That's what's most amazing about you ... [creationists], you believe in the most colossal accidents of all, a host of apparently related organisms which did not become that way through the only means known to produce relatedness.
Glen Davidson
Hi David Pendeleton, Long time no see!
It was interesting reading all the different views. Thanks for letting people of opposing views post. The only thing I would think you need to know is, Know your science. talk to your church contacts really well before writing and posting on this topic, in fact, I feel you should have run it by a GRI representative before you wrote on it to be sure it was sound science you were/are writing about. If not, you need to take one of their courses on it.
Jim, it is interesting, thought provoking read. If we are trained by Adventist Higher Education to be a scientist, then the path one takes after graduation is up to us, and I respect that.
-Alan, BS Geology, LLU
"Relatedness is NOT proof of phylogeny!"
Neither is a line up of australopithecine to man proof of evolution. Tom
That's what's most amazing about you ... [creationists], you believe in the most colossal accidents of all, a host of apparently related organisms which did not become that way through the only means known to produce relatedness.
Just to specifically include the IDists (which I had included generally with the term "creationists"), I would say the exact same thing for all related organs, parts, and systems--which essentially is all of them.
The strongest "appearance," and the one that withstands scrutiny (most recently through DNA sequencing), in biology, is that of relatedness. "Design" has never been so "apparent" as relatedness, and has always led to problems in trying to explain supposed design as design. Anyone, from Behe to Hovind, who can claim that all of this apparent relatedness is some accident, or fraud on the part of some "Designer", is not thinking at all well.
And it hardly pays to argue extensively with anyone so opposed to normal ways of discernment.
Glen Davidson
P.S. Alan Swarm, the whole point of an independent Adventist magazine and blog is to not have to run articles and blogposts by denominational workders.
ATTENTION
There is now a new "Alan" rule for Spectrum, applicable to all, (except us editors because the only joy we get is in making things up).
Following the spirit of Alan's suggestion, before writing on theology or Biblical interpretation on this waystation among the intertubes, you must run your thought by the Biblical Research Institute first.
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.h...
We made some calls this afternoon, quickly, in a new bipartisan effort to clean up the mess of the world wild heresy webs and BRI has agreed to check out your ideas and then give the safe ones a little secret Ellen White reference combination - let's randomly call it an "imprimatur" - which you can include in your comment or review to signal that your conscience is on the right track so that the rest of us don't have to wrestle with evaluating evidence.
Chris, I wrote the following answer and then while scrolling down to post it I see that Beth has posted a nice response to your questions on falsification. Nevertheless I’ll post my version. First, here is your quote:
"Now, this works both ways. For evolution to be falsifiable, then ID is provable. And for ID to be falsifiable, then evolution is provable. This is profound, well it was for me when I realized it.
The falsification of evolution is ID.
The falsification of ID is evolution."
--- ---
“Can you not see the context of what I am saying?
There either is teleology, or there is not.
ID says there is, evolution says (assumes/suggests) that there is not.
These are mutually exclusive positions.
There is no in-between.
This is where the issue is that I was trying to get at.”
Chris, I think I understand what you are saying, but I still think there are some logical errors embedded in your statements (though not being a philosopher of science, I only offer that criticism as a suggestion rather than dogmatically). A few things to think about: (1) Proving the falsity of a negative does not prove the truth of a positive if the positive and negative are not mapped one-to-one. (2) ID is not the ONLY falsification of evolution—there are many. So ID shouldn’t be thought of as the one-to-one mapped inverse of evolution. (3) If ID can’t be falsified, then talking about the falsification of ID is meaningless, let alone the implications of that for the truth or falsity of evolution.
As for the mutually exclusive positions, you may want to consider that millions don’t accept your view. There is even a teleological argument for evolution! Many see directionality and even “design” in evolution. Some see God behind that process (theistic evolution). In short, millions do in fact see an in-between. It is just hard to see that when one is in a particular ideological framework (I’ve been there).
This being outside my specialty, I haven’t given much thought to the philosophy of science (in reading about it, my experience as an applied scientist “worker bee” aligns more closely with Kuhn than Popper). Therefore, to answer your question on how evolution would be falsified, I’ll rely on a post by Paolo Viscardi (Horniman Museum, London) posted recently at another website:
“Evolution could be falsified by observations that organisms do not display variation. Evolution could be falsified by observations that all members of a species manage to survive to reproduce (i.e. that for any organism, two parents could produce two offspring in their lifetime and the population will not decrease). Evolution could be falsified if there was no mechanism for passing on the traits of a parent to its offspring. Evolution could be falsified if organisms existed that did not share common features with other organisms (living or fossil). The list goes on….Evolution is falsifiable, it's just that attempts to falsify it have not been successful.”
An abstract from a paper on this question can be read here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x05n5w520g614xt1/
Note that not all philosophers of science have placed as much emphasis on falsifiability as Popper did. Even he recognized the concept of “fitness” of competing hypotheses/theories and even evolution of science itself. The root purpose of all this is to enable science to make predictions and to build on that, to be able to systematize knowledge of the world around us in meaningful and useful ways.
As an applied scientist, I spend most of my time applying known theories to solve everyday problems. I spend very little time thinking about how to upset those theories. We only do that when a theory’s predictions don’t work out in a situation where they should (and then only after checking and rechecking our results and getting others to do the same).
Evolution passes the effective theory test with a long track record of successful predictions. ID has not passed that test (several key Behe examples in his book have in fact already been shown to be not the IC structures he said they were).
BTW, Beth, I’m not sure that descent from a common ancestor would have to be taken as literally “one” common ancestor. The probability of many seems low, but a few, perhaps? (Again, this is outside my expertise, but I wouldn’t consider evolution to be falsified by an outlier “non-branch” lying beside the family tree).
I attended Edward Humes Darwin week Lecture at Washington State University last night. It was a very well attended event with around 800 people attending; many of us sitting on the floor along the wall as students are want to do when no seats are available. Before the lecture was a book signing and a reception followed.
The lecture was based on his book Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America’s Soul (2007). The book mentioned by David Pendleton in the original post. The title of the lecture was Talk Radio Evolution; a title intended to contrast the version of the evolutionary theory that most people in the country identify with against the truth about the scientific theory of evolution.
For example Talk radio version:” Evolution is just a theory”. Scientific truth: “Evolution is a scientific theory, an organizing principle that is testable and falsifiable that has stood the test of time with amazing durability”. DNA, not even conceived of during Darwin’s lifetime has strengthened rather than falsified the theory. He points out that the scientific method rests on the concept that only explanations from nature can explain natural phenomenon. In other words, science cannot rely on extra-natural explanations; that is a science killer. Once you can say, “That is because God created it that way” the science stops.
Another important idea that Mr. Humes came back to again and again is that Science and faith are not at war. Two thirds of scientists who accept the theory of evolution in the US are people of faith. The majority of scientists find a way to integrate faith and evolution. One of the expert witnesses in the Dover trial is a faithful Catholic who finds great comfort in his faith and yet conducts science with full acceptance of evolution as a foundational theory.
Here is where Mr. Humes’ understanding of the clash falls short. Maybe he is not as familiar with fundamental Christianity as he is with mainstream religion. I understand that there is a war, a fundamental gulf between fundamental Christianity, Judaism and Islam and evolutionary science. I was brought up with a literalist understanding of the Bible; I know that the fundementalist understanding and science come in direct conflict. As a scientist, faced with that choice, I don’t hesitate to accept science over a faith that does not allow for honest science. This is a tragedy. Why should we require intellectual dishonesty as a prerequisite to Seventh-day Adventist Christianity?
Bryan, to your questions:
(A) Question is not relevant, though hints are in my answer to Nic. There are evolutionists who are Christians and who are atheists. There are ID folks who are Christians and a few who are agnostics. I consider myself a believer and doubter both. The lack of integration of sound science and theology in Adventism is a stumbling block to belief.
(B) I searched this page and didn't find an instance where I said Christians taught a flat earth. Where did I say that? I do think that is the view of the prescientific world including the Bible authors.
Still waiting for your answers, and now I see that pogo has asked basically the same question I did (on macro vs. micro).
Great post, Carlitas! Thanks. I really empathize with your last question.
I could be wrong but I detected a strong note of sarcasm in Alan Swarm's post. If you were actually being sincere Alan, I apologize. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
And RT, yes thank you for your clarification on common ancestory. "A" common ancestor is easier shorthand than "a small subset of creatures that were common ancestors" but in discussions like this accuracy is important :)
Tom, Beth, Chris, & RT,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments. Unfortunately, I have been forced to temporarily neglect this forum as a result of my fight with those who believe that it is morally acceptable to terminate the life of the unborn at will to protect the lifestyle of the pregnant woman.
I am fighting that war on behalf of the unborn on two fronts and this consumes approximately 200 percent of my free time. Staying late in the evening is not helping very much. I am planning to read your comments and answer them ASAP. I hope you understand!
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
As an applied scientist, I spend most of my time applying known theories to solve everyday problems. I spend very little time thinking about how to upset those theories. We only do that when a theory’s predictions don’t work out in a situation where they should (and then only after checking and rechecking our results and getting others to do the same).
Evolution passes the effective theory test with a long track record of successful predictions. ID has not passed that test (several key Behe examples in his book have in fact already been shown to be not the IC structures he said they were).
I think of the iconic science of classical mechanics, which didn't square with all observations in Newton's time. It's said that he in fact fudged on the speed of sound, actually. Famously, he also had angels correcting orbits--which was as unscientific (though more acceptable) then as saying "God designed it" is today.
Also, by the time of Einstein, Mercury's orbit was "falsifying" Newton's model. While that was a well-recognized problem, no one threw out Newton without having an alternative. Only when there really was a competing (or superseding) idea that explained things better did anyone decide that Newtonian mechanics was incomplete.
The difference with evolution is that we're quite aware that it's an incomplete model. Not all physicists thought that of Newton's model, which might have been saved as it was by unusual circumstances.
Here's how Darwin put it:
Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.
Charles
Darwin (1859)
Now there's a fulfilled prophecy! But as you note, RT, hanging onto difficulties is not how science is actually done. I have no idea why Popper was so popular, really, since his ideas are counter to how most scientists view science, including the scientist/philospher Kant. Popper acknowledged Charles Peirce as having given him the idea of falsification, yet Peirce's understanding of science seems a far more reasonable one to me.
This is not to say that I think that gradual evolution (gradual as compared to creation or "design events", that is) has come close to falsification. Indeed, that is not a very good falsification test, since even knowing all of the routes of evolution is not possible today.
Breaks from cladistic nesting, a complete lack of transitional fossils, purpose, or rational planning in "life's design" are all much more reasonable contrary predictions, which is why we don't see creationists discussing these, since evolution passes these reasonable tests with flying colors.
And until another theory can account for the predicted cladistic nesting of taxonomy (among organisms not swapping genes horizontally, that is), transitional fossils (which are identified as such via non-telic evolutionary predictions), and the lack of purpose and rational solutions in biological systems, the one theory that does account for these facts will have to be used.
There is no scientific alternative, for throwing out non-telic evolutionary theory would leave biology nearly as intractable as physics would be without Newton's physics, along with subsequent developments in physics.
Glen Davidson
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just thinking...which is what Spectrum is supposed to be about I thought.
Alan,
I'm sorry I misunderstood.
Alexander,
BRI(Biblical Research Institute) and GRI (Geoscience Research Institute) are two seperate entities. I don't think I mentioned BRI in my note.
"the whole point of an independent Adventist magazine and blog is to not have to run articles and blogposts by denominational workders."
why not? I'm not working in my major field, geology, but I like to read about it.
"the whole point of an independent Adventist magazine and blog is to not have to run articles and blogposts by denominational workders."
why not? I'm not working in my major field, geology, but I like to read about it.
Do you often speak in non sequiturs?
Glen Davidson
Glen, thanks for the comments. I will have to learn more about theoretical biology before I can fully understand your last section! Some of those terms are foreign to me.
Alex, in haramony with your requirement for science posters to first receive an imprimatur from BRI, it is suggested that any theological comments first receive approval from the ATS, either Alex Rodriquez or his appointee will suffice. This will ensure that no possible information disagreeing with the official SDA doctrinal position ever be posted.
Finally have a small amount of time, but I am not going to be able to participate in as much depth as I would wish to because of a range of pressing responsibilities (trying to finish a rough 1st draft of a book to use for my university students and leading a new church plant with another professor that we were hoping a pastor would be leading but there are some problems and delays in that) plus the other family issues that are a priority. So not sure how much time I’ll have here after this even though this topic is also very important and affects the lives and fates of millions.
Beth,
1) 1st, It’s unfortunate that you do not wish to deal with the vast assumptions and double standards that evolution makes. If you refuse to deal with them, no matter how intelligent you are (and I think you are quite intelligent as are many other evolutionists), it is pretty much impossible to come to an accurate and truthful conclusion since you are not using any kind of level playing field in comparing theories and this is absolutely essential and critical to find what is really truth. When logical fallacies are the foundation of comparison/judgement, we can prove that almost anything we wish is true. This can and has been done throughout history. There are numerous misconceptions, assumptions and logical fallacies that very few if any evolutionists are aware that they are committing and that are essential to recognize in order to make any real progress and advancement in understanding truth (and that means truth that I believe in or don’t believe in at present and need to learn…I try hard to follow consistent standards both for ideas I like and those I don’t unlike evolutionists, atheists and MANY others, sometimes even some creationists.)
2) 2nd, “scoring points”/reputation etc. for myself or for another person is not really important to me. But, when evidence for creation are misattributed to evolution that must be corrected. What is important is
a) Challenging a philosophy that is directly involved in the murder of over 100 million people and the loss of faith for probably many more to see if it actually has testable observable proof that is not borrowed or stolen from creationism or other theories that exclusively prove it is the way things actually happened. This categorically does not exist Beth.
b) Educating people to realize that if theories and philosophies are not compared with fair and equal tests and standards and comparisons and their track record and credibility taken into account and similar things, there isn’t the slightest chance of finding what is really true any more than a gambler at Las Vegas would have of winning a 1 million dollars in 1 effort at a slot machine.
c) I agree that treating people with respect is important and sometimes I speak strongly about the false and many double standards that evolution is using, but please understand that this is not intimating that those who disagree with me are stupid. Most are intelligent but just have not read anything like Thomas Kuhn’s “Theory of Scientific revolution’s and are not even aware of the vast numbers of assumptions and logical fallacies that underpin evolution. The incontrovertible fact is that millions have died and Darwin himself explicitly called this kind of thing “advantageous” for the advancement of the human race, other millions have lost all hope of salvation as a direct result of people using evolutionary theory on people. Plus trillions of dollars has been spent and mountains of time utterly wasted on a philosophy that caused these first 2 evils and yet despite 150 years of investigation still can’t produce even one testable, observable example that it actually can happens let alone that it DID happen that way (2 very distinct things), not even with bacteria or insects where we can produce 1000s and millions of generations. Evolution alone, but especially combined with atheism are by FAR the very most destructive philosophies in human history and have produced nothing of any value to human life (adaptation, natural selection, micro-evolution are all ideas developed by creationists and evolutionists have no right to steal these and claim them as proofs for their own philosophy). See www.thedarwinpapers.com chapters 2, 12-14 for much documentation and I have more beyond that. So, YES, I will speak very strongly against this extremely destructive philosophy since it has destroyed so much of value in the lives of so many millions.
Bryan
P.S. RT, I'm writing my response to you now :).
RT,
Here’s a short response to your list of questions from a few days ago, short since I have just too many other urgent things to do and I know that to help people understand the decades of misinformation they’ve been taught is not an instantaneous process. So, I’m not under any delusions that this will change your mind instantly. But, I STRONGLY recommend that you RT (and all other evolutionists in the world) read Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions to see how establishments use enormous amounts of misinformation and other methods to keep their ideas in power and watch all of Dr. Veith’s 7 presentations. That’s the least you can do if you really want to make an informed comparison and judgment between 2 theories. They are at:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Genesis-Conflict.html
Also, see the “Scientific Case for Creation” which details 131 lines of evidence from just ONE scientist that matches creation theory far better than evolution theory http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html
A 2nd and maybe even more important fact that you and others need to realize is that the Bible has a track record of accuracy that nothing else on the planet can compare to. Evolution’s “proof” is like a candle comparing itself to the sun and arrogantly stating that it is brighter and more powerful than the sun. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out numerous hammers throughout history. Science does enormously better than evolution, but still numerous things that were taught in science just a few decades ago are “known” to be false now. Who knows what things future science will show about what we “believe” now. The fact that science is “self-correcting” is helpful, but also proves that it is often in error, whereas the Bible has proven itself far more accurate than any other book on history and even science. It stated the truth in MANY 1000s of areas of both history and science several millennia before we scientists and historians got it right. So, the credibility of the Bible is beyond question. In regard to the controversy between science and Scripture Ellen White put it well when she wrote: “There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God's Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men's ideas of science. Human knowledge is an unreliable guide.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 114.
Human wisdom changes with the wind. Sometimes it gains in accuracy, sometimes it goes the other way. Those who think that human wisdom of the present is more “truthful” than the Bible are making a seriously in error and this has been proven 1000s upon 1000s of times and will be again in the question regarding evolution at some point. There is absolutely no rational defense for any Christian to discredit or allegorize the incomparably accurate words of God in the Bible due to present human “knowledge” which is often turned on its head within a few years or decades. There is absolutely no way to harmonize the Bible and Darwinian evolution in terms of origin of life and how all the different kinds of animals came into being. The 2 are mutually exclusive and any scientist or Christian who says differently is betraying one or the other. Either all the kinds were created or they evolved. There is no possible way to harmonize these two ideas unless you betray the Bible or evolution (but I do realize some do not comprehend this fact and God may “wink” at their ignorance as Paul says He does sometimes in Acts 17). So, we have to “choose ye these day whom ye will serve”, evolution and/or human wisdom falsely called science which is often proven in error or the Bible which is endlessly confirmed by both history and observeable/testable science in many 1000s of cases. I don’t like believing things that are false. So, I study as much as I can and then trust sources which are the most credible for areas where I don’t have time to study. That means the Bible trumps easily evolution and the current humanist/materialistic establishment. Now with that preamble, on to responding to your comments directly.
The cartoon you referenced on “beliefs” can be applied with far more force and accuracy to evolution. It conflates science with evolution, makes an explicit lie and just assumes that the evolutionist establishments’ view of thing is somehow correct regardless of the fact that no solid scientific evidence has ever been produced that verifies it any more than the evidence of centuries that Ptolemaic scientists produced “proving” that the earth was the center of the solar system. There are many cartoons, arguments and defensive techniques like the one you referenced supporting the view of establishments MANY times. But, those establishments have frequently been proven in great error regardless of how many logical fallacies they have called evidence and used to support their view.
Science has been filling in pieces of the puzzle YES. Evolution has not. A pretty chart of relationships can just as easily prove a common designer as common descent. For most of history, creationists just assumed creation and spent their time developing most of the practical branches of science that would save lives (such as Pasteur’s work in bacteriology and vaccines). The actual taxonomical system was designed by Carolus Linnaeus, a creationist (yet another of many ideas that evolutionists act like they came up with, but actually belong to creation science). According to Wikipedia, he liked to say ' Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit, ' Latin for, "God created, Linnaeus organized". What evolution needs to do to prove that it is at least rational and scientific is at least ONE observable case where random chance (unguided by any scientist in any way) can actually cause a one life form to evolve beyond the family boundary. But, even proving this would not even begin to prove that our world evolved through the means of evolution. It would only prove that it’s more possible scientifically. Possibility does not prove what ACTUALLY happened as all should know.
“Bryan, here are a few seemingly very important points for you:
1. Abiogenesis (vs. creation) being the point to prove rather than evolution.
2. Macro vs. microevolution not being confused.
3. You place great importance on the testimony of creationist scientists (or "scientists", depending on one's perspective).”
#1 and #2 are critical. I cite testimony of scientists on BOTH sides just because it saves time and I cannot clone myself into 1000 people as I would wish to J to do all the primary research myself. I also think we have far more research and truth available to us than we are using. What we need is for as many as possible to learn and use the research we already have. No scientist on either side is infallible. But, when you have scientists on BOTH sides saying that they can’t find any evidence of observable evolution, that is a MAJOR sign pointing to truth.
Regarding your 5 questions, here are my responses:
1) Since the Bible’s credibility from NUMEROUS perspectives is beyond compare, I’m promoting creation by God. I for sure agree that life originated outside this planet. But, there is nothing as credible or as excruciatingly criticized and confirmed as the Bible and so due to that and the fact that they haven’t demonstrated any solid scientific proof that they are even possible, let alone that life did develop that way, materialistic theories of origin on earth or outside of it are not even close to truly scientific or rational. The God of natural things created this world through his infinite power. As someone else said, even our massive intelligence has not been able to create life yet. It’s just irrational to think that an accident could create what we with our brains cannot. If scientists ever do create life, it will be proof that intelligence is needed as creationists have long insisted.
2) There may be a possibility that the rocks or non-living things on earth existed here long before life (even millions or billions of years). The Bible is not clear on that. It’s even possible for example that there was another population that God destroyed for their sins before Genesis creation. There are quite a few things possible that the Bible does not comment on. But, they are almost completely speculations and kind of a waste of time for us to discuss. So, although it is not proveable either way scientifically, the earth itself could be anything from a few thousand years to billions or more years old. The Bible’s geneology is not precise (since son can mean descendant and father can mean ancestor). So, the date of creation is a little flexible, but there just isn’t any support in the Bible and none in observable testable conclusive science for life existing for millions of years.
3) The Bible has been proven literally true 1000s of times when people thought it was just a legend, fairy tale, metaphor, etc. So, I’ll take my chances trusting in its incomparable track record as to when life started. People speculating about events millions of years ago that NO ONE wrote down observations about do not in the least impress me, are not credible and cannot even begin to be called scientific. The track record is massively on the side of the literalists RT. You can speculate all you want about cells bringing life to earth from space, etc. But, this is no more scientific than spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is not in the least a red herring. It’s a theory of the origin of life. Creation is a theory of the origin of life. THOSE must be compared with each other since they are dealing with the same question. This is just really elementary to true scientific investigation. Could God have developed life in space and then put it in the garden. For sure. God can do anything. But, he didn’t say anything about doing that. And we don’t have any proof that by natural means life can evolve beyond the family boundary. So, no, there is no naturalistic/materialistic method for the evolution of life in space that can even remotely be called scientific. God could do anything miraculously that He wishes. I’ll admit, there’s maybe a molecule of a chance of Him evolving life in space and then planting it here. But, it is a complete waste of time for us to speculate in that area since it’s completely unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific and God doesn’t say anything about it, thus there is no historical witness to that. I’m fine with changing my beliefs when there is solid evidence. I have often thanked those who did so (ranging from those who showed me how individualism and capitalism are seriously flawed to those who showed me that the Big Bang is possible scientifically, not proven, but possible as a God directed event) and many other cases. But, it’s just completely irrational for any scientist or any human being interested in truth to give up Christianity which has mountains of observable and testable evidence from both history and science in favor of evolution or atheism which are religions without any observable, solid evidence from history or science that rest almost wholly on faith.
If you are an evolutionist who believes that God created the origins of life and then let it evolve for billions of years, let me ask a question. Why would a God who knows how to create a cell which is ENORMOUSLY complex, need evolution? If he can create life in a cell, he has all the tools necessary to create all life forms on the planet in an instant. Why would anyone want to wait billions of years for evolution when he has the tools to create things instantly. It just makes no logical sense whatsoever. If you are an atheist…you are a person of complete 100% faith far more than any creationist. I truly admire your faith in the idea that life can develop by chance. You have far more faith as an atheist than I do as a Christian. My faith rests on massive amounts of evidence. Yours rests on none.
4. What’s the difference between micro-evolution/macro-evolution? Micro is seen and observed and testable. It’s a theory invented by creationists that solidly supports creation theory and thus can NEVER be used as proof that Darwinian evolution is true instead of creation. Evolutionists often try to fudge definitions until their definition is nearly the same as micro-evolution. But, evolution must provide LARGE amounts of evidence FAR beyond micro-evolution to differentiate itself from creation and prove that it is indeed the way life on earth originated. It constantly deceitfully tries to use micro-evolution which solidly supports creation and completely unscientifically and by 100% faith extrapolates that into micro-evolution. There are numerous differences in the mechanisms which Walter Veith explains well in his videos. The mechanistic problem for Darwinian evolution is that there are natural boundaries (the family/genus boundary) beyond which we have never observed life forms to evolve no matter how short their life spans. Another issue is that natural selection selects among available traits etc in a species that all work with that species. But, Darwinian requires the selection of traits that don’t even exist. It requires the addition of incredible amounts of new genetic information far beyond what we have EVER seen in nature such as the addition of several new stomachs (cows), wings, different types of eyes and all sorts of digestion and respiratory systems and much more that are absolutely unavailable in natural selection and incomprehensible as to how they could even develop step by step. There are all sorts of other genetic problems such as irreducible complexity. DNA just does not provide the range of possibilities necessary for macro-evolution to occur.
5) On Behe being an evolutionist, yes, I pick and choose the things I agree with based on the evidence that Behe provides. He’s provided ENORMOUS amounts regarding irreducible complexity. I don’t know of any observable evidence of the quality of IC that he has provided proving either abiogenesis (I’m sure he’s not interested in that) or macro-evolution. If you have read any significant amount of research at a professional level as I have, you know that there is probably not a scientist in the world who does not do this. They analyze the ideas of other scientists and experts all the time and agree and disagree with different parts of them. Why is this something you do not understand? Do I need to provide evidence to you? I can turn the question around for Behe and others. Why do you accept certain parts of some scientists work but not EVERYTHING they right?
Bonus question: It is absolutely wrong to limit science to materialistic explanations. Many of the greatest scientists in history and some modern ones regarded science as a great partner to theology and one that could confirm truth in religious areas and it has done so even though the Bible’s focus is not science unless it’s practical for health or abundant life. Fields such as astrology and myths can claim to be scientific, but their claims directly contradict science, while numerous of the Bible’s claims are constantly affirmed by observable science and especially history. There is not the LEAST bit of similarity between alchemy or Disneyland and the Bible. Anyone who thinks so is extremely ignorant of centuries of archaeological and historical work, of the numerous scientific claims that the Bible made that have subsequently been 100% conclusively confirmed by science and much more. The question for you is how can YOU differentiate evolution from alchemy since both are similarly unobserveable but experts in both can and did easily make fancy charts supposedly proving their cases.
What’s wrong with science restricting itself to the material world is that it hinders the advance of knowledge. It directly amputates much potential to validate or invalidate things in the metaphysical areas where it actually has vast potential to be useful to ferret out false claims and to correct false and damaging traditions. For example, anthropologists at first refused to be involved in defining which cultural practices were inhumane and didn’t participate in the human rights declarations of the UN. Thus all their expertise and knowledge in that critical area was wasted for many decades. Finally they got a clue that their science could be useful in providing some research and wisdom in moral areas as well and they joined the process of defining human rights and improved it. There are many examples like this.
Here are just a few quotes by scientists who believed that science was a great partner of science and that religion did not in the least hinder science. It actually inspired investigation into discovering the details of how God designed things and made our world to function.
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Johannes Kepler
Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, says,“We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God,” His professional reward, he says, comes when he discovers something that "the creator knew ahead of time."
"The significance and joy in my science comes in...discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!'" My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, five-time Nobel Prize nominee, world-renowned chemist
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”, “I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.” Einstein
I hope that explains a few things to your satisfaction and I especially hope that you read and watch the things that I have recommended since I don’t know how much time I’ll be able to spend on Spectrum due to other pressing issues.
God bless and reveal to you that He is the source of all truth and that the wisdom of man compared to the wisdom of man is nothing but foolishness.
Bryan
Carlitas,
DNA has not done anything to increase proof for Darwinian evolution. It is only part of natural selection, micro-evolution with absolutely no observable evidence it can produce evolution across family boundaries for example. It actually strongly supports the creation idea that life forms develop AFTER their kinds.
“In other words, science cannot rely on extra-natural explanations; that is a science killer. Once you can say, “That is because God created it that way” the science stops.”
This is a common debunked argument Carlitas. Actually as in the quote above, saying God created it that way does not even come close to stopping science. In NUMEROUS proveable cases, that has been where science BEGAN and people were intrigued and motivated to figure out how God designed it to work and how God did it. Saying God did it is no different from saying Abiogenesis did it or evolution did it. All can be investigated with science although at present it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution and esp. abiogenesis than creation science.
“I was brought up with a literalist understanding of the Bible; I know that the fundementalist understanding and science come in direct conflict. As a scientist, faced with that choice, I don’t hesitate to accept science over a faith that does not allow for honest science. This is a tragedy. Why should we require intellectual dishonesty as a prerequisite to Seventh-day Adventist Christianity?”
There is no conflict between observable science and Biblical doctrine. As above, science has OFTEN been proven incontrovertibly in error. The Bible has not. There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty in trusting a source that has been consistently truthful over one that is sometimes truthful while investigating and searching for evidence to prove that as has always been true, the Bible’s claims are correct yet again.
Bryan
Chris (and others on the topic of falsification),
Much you write is really awesome. You had several really good ideas there that I thought were very solid. I agree very strongly that it is not possible to falsify Darwinian evolution. It is beyond the range of human observation and so it’s extremely hard if not impossible to falsify it due to that fact alone (and there are others). I agree that ID and evolution if proven would mostly or completely falsify the other. RT, here’s another way to say it:
There are only 2 ways that life could have come into existence and developed. Either it was created or it came by chance. All other theories just move the question one step back (such as cells in space or whatever). The question is whether life was created and developed within certain boundaries or whether it developed by random chance and has no boundaries. There are not 3,5 or 100 options here. There are only 2. Created or uncreated. It’s like a light switch. If you prove it’s not off, then it’s on. Or if you prove it’s not daytime, it’s evening/night. If there are many alternatives, I agree that falsifying one doesn’t prove the other true.
And falsifying evolution wouldn’t necessarily prove the Bible’s creation story true. There are many creation stories and further evidence would be required to distinguish between them. And no more difficult to do than distinguishing between different theories about ancient events in history. It just requires a lot of work and investigation and tests…much of which have already been done.
BTW RT, about referees, you wrote: “As with you guys, the only unbiased referee would be one who agreed with you. When you KNOW you have the truth, all other opinions are presumed to proceed from bias.”
A) I don’t agree that someone who always agrees with me is unbiased. I think unbiased referees are ones who will use a consistent rule to evaluate both sides, such as requiring observable evidence and not misattributing evidence to the wrong side.
B) I do argue strongly for creation for MANY reasons. But, I have and I will again reevaluate any belief I have when there is really conclusive evidence, especially observeable proof type evidence. That goes for creation, for evolution, for atheism, for astrology and pretty much anything. I have no interest in wasting my life on falsehoods. But, a new theory MUST have MORE SOLID evidence than that of my current theory. Fancy charts don’t even begin to impress me even though they take lots of work and intelligence to create. They’ve OFTEN been wrong in the past because they are filled with assumptions and speculations about things that have never been observed or are distorted or all kinds of things. I’ve mentioned the Ptolemaic scientists. The wright brothers also used charts in developing their airplanes but found in tests that the tests were wrong and had to create entirely new ones. Furthermore, the evolutionist charts can just as easily be used to prove a common designer as they can common descent. There isn’t anything even close to conclusive evidence of common descent or any conclusive or observable evidence to even make evolution defensible scientifically let alone that the world actually did develop that way.
Beth,
You wrote this: What is most important is, does the theory describe better than any other explanation what we actually find? Can it make predictions that are subsequently validated? And (where falsification comes in) is it possible to find things that would show it to be an inaccurate description of what is happening and do we find them? To be considered science, it must be falsifiable even if, in practice, the kind of research done around it doesn't target that.”
This is good…and I mostly agree. The Bible has made many 1000s of historical and scientific predictions and there is no observable evidence to prove it is wrong. It deals with ideas in all sorts of topics, not just origin of life and there has been endless confirmation of its accuracy. Even in theories of development of life, creation science has literally trillions of confirmations of it’s theories that are constantly observable while evolution doesn’t even have one of the same caliber for it’s unique predictions.
But, there is a problem with your statement. While we should not reject a philosophy or theory which has lots of evidence, esp. observable and testable evidence, for one that has very little or none (which is precisely why I trust the Bible over evolution), sometimes the true theory doesn’t even exist yet. Spontaneous generation seemed correct and seemed to have good evidence and for a time there was nothing else that challenged it. Should we then conclude that it is true just because there was nothing with better evidence that that time? Well, obviously not. Sometimes we don’t know all the truth and true theories will be discovered in the future.
Evolution theory has been proven false in MANY of its predictions. Then it is modified to fit the anomolies. Unfortunately, this extreme leeway is not given to creation scientists. If they make one false prediction in areas that the Bible doesn’t say anything, the entire theory is claimed to be falsified. Yet another example of double standards.
Regarding the Cambrian rabbits, etc. That’s a common evolutionary challenge. But, like many similar questions in the past where evolution’s challenge was answered, someday a Cambrian rabbit will be discovered and evolution will invent another hard question that will also be falsified with time. The Cambrian explosion is MOST UNHELPFUL to the theory of evolution since all major phyla and classes are represented there even according to evolutionists. The Cambrian layer is INFINITELY more difficult to explain for evolution than it is for creation.
“Common descent with modification could easily have been destroyed by genetic work. How? By an accumulation of data that shows no pattern in our relatedness. The fact is that genetic work shows what you would expect to see if we all came from a common ancestor.”
Again, genetic relatedness is proof that is at least as strong for a common designer as it is for common descent. It was Mendel, YET AGAIN a CREATIONIST, who founded genetics, proving yet again that belief in God is NOT the end of science, but actually the beginning of MUCH scientific inquiry to understand how God designed things.
Bryan
Elaine wrote,
“These {creation} stories were man's inept attempt to explain the origins of his world through his perspectives. In those early stories, much like contemporary literature, there were god(s) compared anthropomorphically who were not omniscient and who became angry, acted rather irrationally and no reasons were given other than the god(s) had more than human power to act.”
It always amazes me that modern people think they are more credible judges of what happened in ancient times than very credible and consistently truthful sources that lived millennia closer to the event in question. But, again, just like theories about other historical events are able to be investigated and validated or invalidated, so there is much that can be done to validate or invalidate different creation stories and find out which is most truthful. The fact that that there are many creation stories adds very strong evidence to the theory that it happened just like 1000 people observing any event these days would have VERY different versions of it but with some major similarities and that would be nearly conclusive evidence that it happened.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that God was only active with Bible people. I am very certain that Hhe engaged with non-Jews and non-Christians as well as even the Bible itself testifies in the dreams of the Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. I highly recommend reading “Eternity in their hearts” for a short summary of MUCH evidence regarding this. One European researcher compiled ~12 volumes of materials showing that ancient beliefs about the Creator God across the world by people with absolutely no contact with each other were incredibly similar…of course atheists and evolutionists with a priori commitments will find some excuse to discredit this fact. But, it is true nonetheless and is extremely powerful evidence that a Creator exists.
Chris wrote, “Evolution (at least its abiogenetic assumptions) is in disguise for atheism. Wish more people could spot that from a mile away.”
VERY good point Chris. SOO many have lost their faith due to evolution. But, sadly people use double standards and don’t cause atheism to provide evidence for its faith and neither do they ban this faith based religion and it’s associates from education purely because it is faith based. Very unfortunate.
Nic wrote, “You also stated that “Richard Dawkins testifies that atheism is the only natural scientific conclusion.” In this, Dawkins is terribly mistaken. An unbiased approach to the evidence we discover in nature leads to the logical conclusion that design requires a designer...The evidence for design is so compelling that it led Anthony Flew to the need to accept the ID theory as the most logical explanation for human life and the fine tuning of the universe.”
Great point Nic. I listed links to Anthony Flew’s testimony before. He was the world’s foremost atheist for a long time, now even he believes the evidence points towards design.
“If people understood how religious science is, religion might claim some territory back. My point is not to deny the scientific merit or otherwise if ID, but rather to point out the religiosity of evolution.”
Very good point, I agree Chris. Science itself is religious and has faith/axioms/assumptions in several things at its foundation. Evolution is infinitely more religious than science though. And this is my main goal as well. I don’t think it is possible to conclusively prove scientifically MANY events in ancient history. Science is VERY limited in doing that. But, there is weight of evidence from MANY fields of investigation (one of them being science) that put together points in only one direction. It’s very wrong for people to ignore evolution’s faith basis and science’s faith basis while demanding that creation science never use an iota of faith to be considered science.
RT wrote: “Question {a} is not relevant, though hints are in my answer to Nic. There are evolutionists who are Christians and who are atheists. There are ID folks who are Christians and a few who are agnostics. I consider myself a believer and doubter both. The lack of integration of sound science and theology in Adventism is a stumbling block to belief.”
Yes, I know there are many amalgamations of belief on both sides. But, my question IS relevant because I need to know what you accept and believe and consider proof so I don’t waste my time giving evidence that will not convince you anyway and I've clearly stated what I believe so you don't waste your time. It is critical and fundamental that we set consistent standards and then provide legitimate evidence that both sides have agreed are valid. Otherwise this whole discussion will not change anyone. To do that I need to know what you’re beliefs are and if you are following the principles that you set for creation with your own beliefs. VERY VERY EXTREMELY few evolutionists and atheists follow the principles they set for others. If I were to follow this principle I could prove almost anything on the planet as true.
RT wrote, “(B) I searched this page and didn't find an instance where I said Christians taught a flat earth. Where did I say that? I do think that is the view of the prescientific world including the Bible authors.”
RT, you wrote: “[I belong to the "earth is round" view that is unpopular amongst those who take seriously the Bible "as it reads"].”
This is another gigantic straw man of the most enormous proportions. I don’t know of even ONE fundamentalist Christian who thinks the earth is flat (although there might be a rare couple of fundamentalists or evolutionists/atheists that could be straw manned into representing the whole group). This is a gross misrepresentation of the most dishonest kind that you have made, but one that is typical of many evolutionists and atheists who don’t really know much about what they are criticizing. And it was a direct ridiculing of me and other literalists, even if said in humor, since we have said we take the Bible “as it reads”. Would you be impressed if I joked that evolutionists are the type of people who believe in alchemy and that cheese can instaneously tranform itself into a mouse or that evolutionists believe that fish can evolve into humans in a century? Of what help is this to a rational search for truth RT?
Wikipedia in its section on flat earth states, “The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BCE, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth.[3][1]” see more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Evolutionists, please stick to facts and observeable evidence. Imagination is fine in fiction. We're dealing with facts and truth of the most critical nature...concepts that affect lives on this earth and lives for eternity. Imaginations and sophisticated charts are not a trustworthy basis upon which to make life and death decisions either on this earth or for eternity. TESTABLE, OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED AND IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE BASIS to start our investigations with. AFTER that, maybe you can have a little more leeway. But, you MUST MUST MUST provide at least some observable testable data for your theory. The Bible did this millenia ago when it claimed that animals developed only according to their kinds in the face of many scientists who claimed spontaneous generation was true as well as NUMEROUS other scientific claims which have been endlessly documented conclusively. Trillions of observeable cases confirm the Bible's predictions. Evolution has so far not provided even ONE example of one life form evolving across generations into another life form across the family boundary. It hasn't even been able to provide examples of this in insect or bacteria life forms. It is a theory for which solid scientific evidence is completely absent and it's just made up of fancy sophisticated charts that cannot be considered scientific proof in the least.
Again, I STRONGLY recommend anyone who doubts the Bible's evidence to give it the benefit of the doubt since it's credibility is beyond question. The evidence will eventually accumulate to prove the Bible right yet again and already is mounting with incredible power that is so great it convinced Anthony Flew, Dr. Veith (again I strongly recommend watching his videos), and millions of others that evolution just doesn't cut it scientifically. OBSERVEABLE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED.
Bryan
Hi all,
I probably won't be able to write much in depth for a while after this (do I hear applause :) ) only a few brief comments, but I just have too many urgent projects to work on now to justify spending a lot of time here. I STRONGLY urge any one with evolutionary or atheistic leanings to watch Dr. Veith's videos, read. Dr. Walter Brown's book and keep an eye open for evidence that the establishment won't inform you of by reading at some solid creationist sites. Make sure also to read the article after the websites below by nobel prize winner George Wald completely (he's an evolutionist by the way). It's VERY good at showing how the establishment can assemble tremendous amounts of "proof" that stands for decades and centuries, but is wrong.
I don't claim that all the sites below are infallible nor that the authors are perfect. No sites or authors on ANY side are. Read and critique what you read, but also critique your own views with the SAME standards (very difficult for most to do without help, but essential). But, they have lots of valuable things to look through to at least become informed of the evidence for creation.
BEST CREATION SCIENCE WEBSITES (in Bryan's opinion)
· http://www.thedarwinpapers.com (The Darwin papers shows the background and some results of the theory of evolution from history and sociology which shows why this debate is so important to have. Read especially chapter 2, 12-14 on how evolution was directly connected to many millions of people dying in the last century. This doesn't prove evolution false. But, it does give powerful reasons why we should have faith in it unless we have powerful observable evidence to support it.)
· http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Media-Beginning-GC.html (7 in depth presentations by former virulent evolutionist Dr. Veith who loved to destroy faith in the Bible. Now he’s converted to being a creationist due BOTH to experience and much primary research. He was for a long time chair of zoology at a secular university and has a ph.d. in zoology.
· http://www.nwcreation.net/ (great site with many excellent videos, media and graphics, some at a very technical level that provide solid scientific evidence that Bible and creation science is valid.)
· http://www.creationscience.com (online book by Dr. Walter Brown, former evolutionist, with evidence for creation in many areas of science...most references are from evolutionists)
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYiCMWd3cQo or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8372ks0raI&feature (The Case for a/the Creator. A GREAT basic overview of the scientific case for creation by a former atheist that gives a basic overview of the scientific case for creationism. This award winning journalist followed the scientific evidence where it led him. It led him to believe in creation science.)
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IGXYxuWWw&feature “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” documents how scientists are abandoning naturalistic explanations for the origin of genetic information and looking to theories of design for new answers. It’s a documentary that tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing "intelligent design", a theory based upon overwhelming biochemical evidence.
· http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/ “A question of origins”. Another very good movie giving evidence from science that supports creation theory.
· http://www.answersingenesis.org (comprehensive multilingual site for creationism with articles at different scientific levels ranging from layperson to technical. Also, a professional peer reviewed journal has started here.)
· http://www.icr.org (quite technical articles are here)
· http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm (articles by Michael Behe on irreducible complexity)
· http://www.incrediblecreaturesthatdefyevolution.com/ (cool illustrations of animals such as the bombardier beetle that could never have evolved by chance.)
· http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ (God and Science)
· http://evolutionoftruth.com/ (discusses how human “truth” changes often and how evolution is losing scientific ground quickly. Some interesting links on proportions used throughout nature to show a designer and other things.)
· http://snapshotsofgod.com (brilliant site by a former agnostic showing that belief is rational in simple but scientific ways)
· http://www.doesgodexist.org (great site by a former atheist on logical proofs for god)
· http://www.evolutionisdead.com/ (tons of brilliant quotes on evolution)
· http://www.evolutionfairytale.com (funny slide show about the impossibilities of evolution)
· http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/ (good short summaries of the questions of each area and great movie. .”A Question of Origins” on this topic)
· http://www.rae.org (Rage against Evolution)
· http://www.drdino.com, (14 hours of video on creation at: http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php. Disclaimer: While Hovind has gathered a LOT of great scientific material that is often VERY good, he had some unbiblical views on taxes that got him in trouble. But, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy to discount his scientific views because of this. So, don’t fall for that trap.)
· http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm (some articles against evolution)
· http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter
· http://www.genesispark.org (interesting site about the preflood worlds and atmosphere and giant animals and plants)
· http://www.kacr.or.kr (korean website on creation science)
· http://www.origins.org/, http://www.trueorigins.org/ (chat group discussing origins of the world)
· http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolutionTEXT.htm (book on scientific and natural laws that undermine evolution)
· http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ (good links to some basic questions)
· http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm (many great quotes about evolution!!!)
· http://www.creationism.org/
To conclude, here's another quote/story by Dr. George, Nobel prize winner that's very powerful (sorry Nic, this one is long, but essential). Read it completely please. (and don't even start to dismiss it because it's a few decades old unless you are willing to dismiss Darwin because his ideas are over a century old.):
"One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Men are used to making things; it is a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account in the opening chapters of Genesis. There we are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, God brought forth living creatures- first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and finally man.
Spontaneous Generation
The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one 's senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry…
But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries, this belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. First the Italian Francisco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then in the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke the seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to show that the air inside the flask had not been vitiated.
This problem was finally solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860, with a simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out in a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria, and molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only rarely reached the broth. In such a flask, the broth seldom was contaminated; usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.
We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.
For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation…One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine), "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46; reprinted on p. 307-320, A Treasury of Science, Fourth Revised Edition, Harlow Shapley et al., eds., Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. p 309.
"Evolutionists, please stick to facts and observeable evidence"
You want FACTS that strongly indicate life on earth for more than 10,000 years...
Here are just a few!
/Bevin
Rocks can be categorized by their chemicals and their structure. The major categories reflect their origin – igneous from volcanoes etc, sedimentary from depositions of eroded material, and metamorphic from the heat/pressure transformations of existing rocks.
Huge layers of rocks clearly show indications of being pushed, folded, crushed, eroded, and metamorphosed. Since sedimentary rocks have been metamorphosed by plate tectonics, and since those processes take millions of years, most metamorphosed sedimentary rocks can not have come from an event in the last ten thousand years.
To fold mountains requires high pressures AND high temperatures. There is not enough time in the short-age model for the mountains to have cooled down.
There are chains of volcanoes at various locations in the world, the Hawaiian Islands for example. These chains show more than ten thousand years of continental drift.
Coral atolls are the result of eroded islands and volcanos – the volcanic rock at Enewetak is now 1200 metres under coral!
http://research.calacademy.org/research/izg/CoralReefOrganisms/CoralReef...
The igneous rocks have magnetic fields imprinted in them. One such instance is the magnetic field in rocks around the Mid-Atlantic rift. These fields apparently come from more than ten thousand years of magnetic reversals. http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/reversal.htm
Various radiometric measurements can be made in rocks, and can be used to estimate the age of the rock. http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html (covers other methods also)
There are 174 positively identified craters from meteors. They range from 15meters to 300 kilometers across. http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/
Meteorites are found all over the Earth, but they are easy to find and well-preserved in Antarctica. http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/index.cfm
There are rocks on the ocean floor around Antarctica, carried there by glaciers turning into icebergs. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to transport them there at the current rate.
There are many species on the Earth today – about 1.5 million currently named and classified. There are guesstimates of a further 2M – 50M not yet identified.
Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks and in metamorphic rock that came from sedimentary rocks
The fossil species appear in groupings in the rocks. These groupings are consistent with the patterns of deposition, erosion, folding, crushing, movement. These groupings are often common in the lower layers of rock from two different continents, but differ in the upper layers.
The White Cliffs of Dover are part of a huge chalk formation under all of the UK, into the North Sea, containing huge numbers of fossils. They are about 500 meters thick. The fossils in the lower layers differ in appearance from those in the top layers.
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalkformationfossils.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
Ice cores drilled from both Antarctic and Arctic ice show hundreds of thousands of distinct layers.
Glass – either man-made or natural volcanic – slowly absorbs water. The amount absorbed can thus be used to estimate the time elapsed since the glass was made.
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/10_Obsidian_Hyd...
Archaeological sites contain ceramics. Heating these materials causes them to emit light. The amount of photons emitted is a measure of how long since the material was last heated. This can also be done to lava. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence
Archaeological sites contain charcoal. The carbon content of materials is made up of two major isotopes, with different half-lifes. The carbon in the atmosphere is affected by solar radiation, and has a different ratio of these two isotopes than we find in materials not so affected. We find in new materials made from atmospheric carbon have this same ratio, but old materials don’t. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae403.cfm
DNA can be sequenced, and the sequences can be compared. There are many similarities between the DNA of similar appearing organisms, some between disparate organisms, and a wide range of DNA.
Very similar cell mechanisms are used for wildly different purposes – the result of evolution tinkering to create the new mechanism.
Bevin,
All the above is observable yes, BUT NONE of it comes even remotely close to being conclusive evidence for evolution. It is a gigantic leap of faith to assume that you know how long it took to lay down all the layers, corals, and that ANYTHING requires more than a few thousand years to happen. Time and again, modern observable events have proven that life can recover far more quickly than evolutionists thought (Mt. St. Helens) and that canyons can form in literally days).
www.answersingenesis.org/go/walla-canyon
creationontheweb.com/content/view/5369
So, all the speculation about mountains folding and such and how long it would take is just that, speculation...and there are plenty of other equally scientific explanations of that. Both sides rest on numerous assumptions.
Charts naming animals and their relations are being developed by creationists as well. I guess that's all we need to prove a common designer right? Just making sophisticated charts seems to be what passes for science these days with most people. But cool charts do not any scientific theory prove. Not even CLOSE. Neither does similar morphology, sequencing DNA or similar cell mechanisms. They are all great investigations of present ways that life functions. But, they don't even BEGIN to prove evolution since they can EASILY be explained by a common designer rather than common descent. It doesn't take much brain power to invent all kinds of possible ways something could have developed from a common ancestor or a common designer. But, that's just speculation and nothing observable about how things actually DID develop which is actually what I was asking for when I asked for observable evidence. You can provide evidence like the above till the cows come home. It won't help your case one bit since I can use all the same data and arrange it in sophisticated ways to prove a common designer. I can cite all kinds of things that make evolution theory impossible. Polonium halos for one and the complete impossibility of a cell popping into life from inanimate chemicals all by itself for two.
There are at least 80 ways to date the earth with billions of years of difference in their results (and numerous ones with with radiometric dating systems that have produced wildly different results). So, basically you can pick and choose whatever method fits your fancy. None of the above is observable proof for evolution. Depending on what assumptions you make, it can support all sorts of wildly differing theories. So, none of the above is anywhere close to conclusive.
I wrote a short article on this for laymen which deals directly with both the enewatek reef and the ice core samples. I suggest you read it to show how the data that we collect at present is real, I agree. But, the interpretations and assumptions that are fitted onto it are wildly different depending on your apriori faith...and this goes for BOTH sides, evolution and creation. Thus, they can't even begin to be considered exclusive proof for evolution.
http://www.eslmission.org/docs/esl/Dating%20the%20Earth%20(version%20edited%20by%20Dr.%20van%20der%20Weijden).doc
Answers in Genesis and other sites have MUCH more technical versions of the above if you wish to read many dozens of articles on this topic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
Because there are so many options you can pick and choose from and so many possible dates, dating the earth unless corroborated by historical witnesses is not much different from fortune telling. And that's true no matter which side does it. I make it VERY simple regarding the ice layers and coral reefs in my file. Dr. Veith goes through in far more depth in his first video.
AGAIN Bevin and others, you can NEVER claim that evolution even begins to compare with creation science which has trillions of confirmations of it's predictions until you provide some solid observable evidence of life forms changing across family boundaries. If you ever provide that, THEN I'll take a second look at the idea that evolution might have a tiny bit of a scientific basis. Until then, it's probably better that you don't waste your time. Sophisticated and imaginative charts and speculations just don't impress me when creation science made predictions millenia ago that now have trillions of confirmations. It's as simple as that.
Bryan
Bryan if the amount you say indicated truth, you would be very wise. Instead, in my experience, the more someone talks, the less worthwhile what they have to say is. I would say that definately applies in your case. You are all talk and very little substance. And your worthless posts full of copy and paste of every creationist website are really nothing more than annoying. It is hard to find an original thought that you have provided here. Sad, very sad.
Try this. One idea per post. Make it your own. Make it in 200 words or less, otherwise I will continue to skip past your worthless contributions to read the post of others who actually seem to be using the brain that God gave them.
Thank you Nic for your attempts at Brevity. It is much appreciated. I dont always agree with you, but I enjoy reading your thoughts.
Alexander, please consider putting posting length limits in effect for those who are not courtious enough to know when to shut their bloviating mouths.......
Hi All,
Hope you've had a happy Sabbath. How relevant for this discussion :)
Beth,
Thanks for the response. A scientific hypothesis needs to be able to be tested. Ideally, the test needs to have both a pass and a fail condition to be observable. But if not observable, then at least irrefutable with solid logic - such as in mathematics. Even something as abstract as mathematics has theorems and proofs and falsifiability.
If this direct observable scientific testability is not available, then we could dismiss proposed hypothesis via reductio ad absurdum, but this is not as strong as scientific observation, because it depends on transient logic, rather than solid logic like maths. Reductio ad absurdum could prove a hypothesis incorrect, thus suggesting that the opposing mutually exclusive view is more likely to be correct - depending how robust and persuasive the logic was. But it is not as strong, and should never be used to ascertain a scientifically proven solid fact while there remain other valid possibilities that the logic is wrong. Arguments with sophistry but without scientific testability are not really science.
Evolution makes claims to scientific tests that are not necessarily proofs of evolution.
I also agree with RT that arguments via reductio ad absurdum only are persuasive if the theories are truly exactly mutually exclusive.
But in the context of testability where the contention is between creation and evolution, if this area were actually testable, then only one would pass the test as true and the other would fail as false. As humans, we don't have an observation point to do that test.
If scientific testability can be put aside for the theory of evolution, then it can also be put aside for ID.
If usefulness of explanation is a criteria, then ID wins hands down. ALL of science, every single field of science, has assumptions that are only explained by ID. For example, ID predicts that there will be coherence in the universe, therefore we will be able to observe things in a logical manner. ID is the best theorem that we have to explain why logic even exists.
Even the flat earth theory is a more testable scientific theory than evolution is! What does the flat earth theorem predict? That the earth is flat. When we have an observation point sufficient to test it, the test has both a pass and a fail condition for the theory. I trust the establishment when they tell me it is not flat. I don't know it is true with my own experience, I only believe it because of what the scientific establishment says. The explanation and evidence that they present are sufficiently strong enough for me to have faith that they are correct about that.
What does evolution predict? That origins of species evolved WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM GOD. How can that be tested?
RT,
You said this: "As for the mutually exclusive positions, you may want to consider that millions don’t accept your view. There is even a teleological argument for evolution! Many see directionality and even “design” in evolution. Some see God behind that process (theistic evolution). In short, millions do in fact see an in-between. It is just hard to see that when one is in a particular ideological framework (I’ve been there)."
I've been there, and back again... If you read what I wrote, I already said that if your definition of evolution had no objections to teleology, then I might not have a problem with that definition. So, please don't mis-represent me.
I took it for granted that the context of what I was talking about was directly where evolution rejects teleology. I then tried to explain that to you, but you still maintain that I have a logical fallacy!
You can't claim that I have a logical fallacy, at the same time as claiming that our definitions are different. These are two separate things. We need to establish definitions first before we establish fallacy.
Now, I can address your definition. Yes I know of theistic evolution, I had drifted into that myself for quite a few years after doing my university degrees. I heard a lot of the arguments against creation for a long time, and in my mind had started to place parts of the bible as more symbolic suggestions. But it didn't stop there with creation. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps Jesus didn't really raise from the dead? Perhaps... My faith eventually came under serious attack. I had almost become what could be called a cultural adventist, kind of agnostic, but still getting benefit out of church. I hadn't rejected God completely, but my faith was very weak, very shallow.
My life headed south. It was a long way from the confident faithful that I was in my youth. It stayed in this low state of limbo for many years.
One day something amazing happened. I was in real serious trouble while doing a masters degree in IT - my life was at rock bottom, I won't tell you quite how bad it was. I went to a professor to explain to him why I needed an extension on an assignment, and that I didn't think I could do the exam on the following day. And for the life of me, I don't know how or why he did what he did. I put it down to God. Here was this middle aged burly professor, at a secular university, and he said, can I pray for you. And there in that little office, he put his hands on me, and prayed for me. That saved my life.
So, why did I share all that? It is because I trace my whole losing faith back to theistic evolution as one of the major factors.
All those proverbial apples that I had taken out of my bag, I started to look at a second time. This time with an attitude of well, why is my belief not true, just because there might be other possibilities, it doesn't mean that those other possibilities are necessarily correct. And to me now, those other possibilities have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt for me to stop believing in what I believe.
As Bryan says, it has to be more than just possible, the evidence needs to show that evolution did actually occur. This is one of the biggest points in the whole argument.
I also got to say that your definition is different to the established one. My biology text books say that evolution is a non-directed process.
So, I hope you can understand my perspective. In general I am against evolution. Especially while the common understanding is that evolution predicts that GOD DID NOT CREATE US, then I will remain strongly against it.
If you want to talk about different types of evolution than I am, well then I understand that there are other definitions, but they are not what my argument is about. And, I will be defensive even against theistic evolution, and require a high standard of evidence.
Now, I'll tie it back to my original point. Stating my context more specifically:
Hypothesis A) evolution predicts that god did not create us.
Hypothesis B) id predicts that god created us.
The test would be testing for the same thing. The pass for test A is the fail for test B. Likewise, the pass for test B is the fail for test A.
This is the logic, A and B are logically the falsification of each other.
Now, if test B is considered not scientific, then neither is test A. That was my original point. That if the establishment rejects B, they are also rejecting Dawkin's conclusions, which I believe you already agree with.
So hopefully I have explained myself a bit better, and then we'll see if you still think I have made a logical fallacy. It wouldn't be the first time I have, so feel free to fire away.
Now, I can address those claim that evolution is falsifiable. Falsifiable means that a test to prove something has both a pass condition and a fail condition. Note, the logic in a falsification must mean that the opposite is sufficiently mutually exclusive, as you pointed out to me.
"Evolution could be falsified by observations that organisms do not display variation." OK Variation is predicted by creation as well. Does displaying variation prove only evolution? Or are there other things it might explain? Therefore this test does not meet your own criteria of mutually exclusive logic. You criticized my test, because you said the two positions in the test were not mutually exclusive.
"Evolution could be falsified by observations that all members of a species manage to survive to reproduce (i.e. that for any organism, two parents could produce two offspring in their lifetime and the population will not decrease)." OK, selection, the fall of man predicts this as well. Does selection prove only evolution? Or are there other things it might explain? Therefore this test does not meet your own criteria of mutually exclusive logic.
"Evolution could be falsified if there was no mechanism for passing on the traits of a parent to its offspring." OK, inheritance, creation predicts this as well. Does inheritance prove only evolution? Or are there other things it might explain? Therefore this test does not meet your own criteria of mutually exclusive logic.
"Evolution could be falsified if organisms existed that did not share common features with other organisms (living or fossil)." OK, shared biological features, creation predicts this as well. Do common biological features prove only evolution? Or are there other things it might explain? Therefore this test does not meet your own criteria of mutually exclusive logic.
None of the tests you presented prove evolution only - therefore the falsifiability is not about the falsifiability of evolution specifically. They do not meet your criteria that you criticized me of not meeting.
"What does evolution predict? That origins of species evolved WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM GOD. How can that be tested?
What does Creationism (ID) predict? That origins of species evolved WITH direction from God?
How can either be tested???
Niether. Take your choice.
Thanks Elaine,
Thats why I rejoice in faith. It's also part of that choice as to where/when evolution of species even started along the timeline.
:)
Chuck C,
I guess I don’t take offence to Bryan’s posts the way you do, even though I don’t agree with them or think the way he thinks. I hope he won’t be unduly offended by this, but he comes across as a naïve man on a mission, “working hard for God” away from his country and family. I think he believes it is of eternal importance that the evolutionists reading this forum are persuaded to become creationists, and therefore he is investing a lot of late night and early morning hours burying us in information in the hopes that he can persuade us. While his writing is unlikely to be persuasive, I personally give him credit for investing time in alignment with his beliefs and world view, and I do see some originality in his writing even if there are lots of quotes/links. In short, I disagree with him but don't think he should be ridiculed.
We’ve probably all heard pastors that had the same desperation in their voice, pleading for “lost souls” to make a decision as the sermon ran on and on. However, while it can be awkward (in a small congregation, at least) to get up and walk out, on a blog, it is a simple matter to just scroll past the long posts. Therefore, I think we should cut him some slack—even thank him for sharing his viewpoint—and I don’t see these posts as abusive in the sense of justifying a limitation on post length. (And yes, this is the opinion of someone who tends to be verbose himself! ;-) ).
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful reply. And now I understand better why you say evolution isn't falsifiable.
I would beg to differ in how you define it. Evolution cannot state that God did not direct any part of the process. And I think most evolutionists would say that evolution can't say that. It is beyond science.
What evolution can do, and should do, as a scientific theory is describe what happened without either invoking a supernatural cause or ruling out a supernatural cause. And that is what it does. It provides an explanation that does not require God. And it happens to work very well. That is what science is supposed to do because, by explaining it in material terms, you can continue to learn more about it.
It may seem like hair splitting and it probably is, but evolution maintains it is non-teleological for some valid reasons. Seeing direction and purpose are, I think theological issues, not scientific. Evolution can explain the diversity of life without having to have a designer intervene. That doesn't mean a designer didn't intervene, just that we can't pick any spot along the process and say, "OK, here is designer and here is not."
A quick example. My daughter has a cold. I can explain scientifically how she got it. She touched a surface that had cold germs, she touched her mucus membranes, her immune system fought back but not well enough etc. etc. We can go into great detail explaining what happened using natural mechanistic explanations. I can argue that God had nothing to do with it although I certainly can't prove it. I can also say that God intervened in the process somehow and no one can prove He didn't. OK but, looking at it scientifically, do I really have to bring God into the process? And how could I tell scientifically what was germs and what was God?
I can explain it scientifically, or I can discuss the theology of a God who gives people illnesses. I don't have to use God to explain it though. Scientists who study the immune system don't state that the immune process is undirected but then they don't have to because there isn't big pressure on them to teach that it is. It's just kind of understood in the other sciences but evolution has to come right out and say it.
Of course there is much more theological pressure to bring God into the diversity of life rather than a cold. But the issues are similar I think.
Evolution splits from ID because ID says there HAS to be a designer while evolution says, there certainly could be a designer but we can explain it without one too. And invoking a designer as a scientific explanation when you don't need one just complicates the process unnecessarily.
There are certainly plenty of evolutionists who are also atheists and who point to evolution as part of their reasoning. But even Dawkins, if you read him closely, is careful to distinguish what evolution can tell us as a science, and what the separate but logical conclusion for him then is. He never says evolution proves there is no God, never says evolution proves anything about God. He just thinks it is most reasonable to think there is no God. That is different from saying life could not have been designed.
In summary, (whew) I would argue that evolution does not and can not say God did not create us. There are plenty of people who think God created us using evolution. It does say though, that, once life arrived here, God did not HAVE to intervene. And whether He did or not needs to be a matter of faith, not science, because there is really no way scientifically to tell.
BTW I am sympathetic to the faith struggles that evolution brings up and I appreciate your story. These are not easy issues are they?
Bryan,
You keep citing the statistic of “100 million killed because of this philosophy.” It is doubtful that the theory of evolution is responsible for the deaths of 100 million people. Even atheism is unlikely to have been responsible for so many. A totalitarian dictator like Stalin, for example, who was responsible for so many deaths, is driven by power, and his murderous policies were not a result of evolution or probably even atheism. Some creationist propagandists like to lay responsibility for all the deaths of brutal communist regimes at the foot of atheism and evolution, but that makes as much sense as saying that all the deaths of the dark ages were due to religion (instead of to powerful state and church institutions and kings/popes who also happened to be aligned with religion).
Even if it were true, though, how do you suppose that compares with the process of killing all but 8 people plus a select number of animals in a worldwide flood that wiped out a population that previously lived on the order of 1000 years, and had been around for about 2000 years, and was thus so populous that even after 100+ years of burning oil we still haven’t exhausted the product of the decomposed bodies created by that single worldwide cataclysmic event? Was God’s process of “natural selection” more moral than evolution’s, i.e., the destructive actions of a sentient Being less morally reprehensible than the actions of an inanimate, random biological process? Those believing in a literal creation/worldwide flood may want to consider their own glass house before throwing around questionable statistics about crimes attributed to evolutionists.
I’ll get to your other points later.
RT,
I actually want to hear what Bryan has to say to, even though I will disagree with most of it. But I want to hear what HE has to say, not just mindless repetition of other websites. I have been to those websites long ago, and read the collections he cut and pasted. I have also been to the websites that debunk those websites. I want to hear what HE THINKS, in a clear concise fashion. In short, I would love to engage him, on his real thoughts, I just do NOT want to hear mindless repetition of the standard lines from the creationists (Cut and paste no less for crying out loud!!!!!)
And I think we should all strive to keep it short and to the point, not covering 7-10 different topics in one reply or post. there is no way a discussion can have any coherent sense after 20 posts of multiple people jumping all over the place and covering multiple topics in each post. And this is frustrating for someone who would actually like to follow a real discussion.
I guess I will just join Beth on the sidelines, I figured from the beginning this discussion would be pointless.....but I always hope there will actually be people with real points, and open minds discussing potential new insights..... and there are some in this discussion I feel could move that direction.....but with Bryan in the discussion all I get is all the stuff I have heard over and over from gradeschool.... (where in fact I think I sat in a class with Bryan, if I am not mistaken......)
So here is my take on this discussion overall: there are way to many presuppositions, and way to many nuances to the discussion. There are not 2 sides, there are multiple variations of each side, or multiple sides. For example, as someone pointed out earlier, Behe is no young earth creationist, and yet will be quoted by those who are biblical literalists in favor of their positions (and ignored when he does not match their positions). I think it is important to clarify the other person's full position, OR focus only on one specific aspect.
My personal position is this: I am a former young earth creationist who now believes that evolution is essentially correct in its tracing of what happened since life (by which I mean DNA) was in existence. BUT I remain unconvinced that life/DNA can be explained by evolution. For that chance just does not make sense to me, due to the complexity of DNA, no matter how long you stretch time out. At that point only a Designer makes sense to me. It is also at this point that I think we truly enter the realm of metaphysics/philosophy. So basically, I believe God created life/DNA, and then has let it run its course. I guess that makes me a Deist? In any case I believe in both an Intelligent Designer AND in Evolution........anyone else out there join me in this position?
Maybe Chuck, I'm still working on it.
I too, accept that evolution best explains how life got so diverse. But I'm still trying to figure out where God comes in. So far I haven't figured out anything that is very satisfying.
I have no problem with believing God is the source of the Big Bang and even the source for the beginning of life here on earth. I don't know why one would even bother with a god if that god wasn't part of creation in some way. However, then the "fun" begins.
In theory, I have no problem with the idea of God intervening in the process of evolution (as long as you aren't insisting we can see it scientifically) but in reality, I don't think it is helpful theologically. Looking at how messy the process was and is, I'm not sure what we can learn there. God seems like an inept tinkerer who keeps making things just a little different only to let them go extinct and trying again.
And yet, as I've mentioned above and in other threads, with theistic evolution, one ends up with a God that is pretty unrecognizable from our traditional Christian thinking. Evolution goes quite nicely with deism and pretty well with a nice vague theism. The closer to traditional Christianity one gets though, the more problems arise and it is utterly incompatible with fundamentalism.
I'm at the point where it is most important to me to follow the golden rule and Micah 6:8 - to focus on trying to live a loving and ethical life and asking for help from God. I'm not sure I get it but I'll keep asking anyway, trying my best. Beyond that, I get tied in knots.
I hope someday I understand more because right now when it comes to God I feel like a 1st grader sitting in on a graduate level calculus class. Funny how I used to think I could teach that class.
Bryan,
I notice that you confidently make claims without justification. Here’s one: “The fact that science is ‘self-correcting’ is helpful, but also proves that it is often in error, whereas the Bible has proven itself far more accurate than any other book on history and even science.” What you are really asserting is that the Bible is never wrong because some believers insist that it is never wrong. To those believers, the Bible is indeed an anvil and there aren’t enough hammers in the world to “break it” since these believers would believe it despite all evidence to the contrary. That science is open to change and correction is a strength, not a weakness, and recognizes the willingness of scientists to change their minds when the evidence points to a new paradigm. The Bible has received more attacks from critical Bible scholars than from evolutionists. This scholarship has shown the Bible to be “wrong” in many aspects (historical, scientific, etc.). Your claims to the contrary ignore modern Biblical scholarship, not just science.
I was disappointed in your “answers” to my 5 questions. For the most part, you used my question as a launchpad for your stump speech on the topic instead of actually answering the specific question. I wish you’d take the time to read and understand the questions, then answer very specifically. I see little point in responding to your “answer” because for the most part you did not answer the questions.
You finished with yet another example of picking and choosing. You cite Francis Collins and Einstein in your closing remarks to support the idea that science should be a partner with theology. Yet these scientists were/are evolutionists, not creationists!
Regarding my “earth is round” comment, thanks for finding the “flat earth” quote. Now I know what comment of mine you were referring to. I wasn’t suggesting that many (any?) fundamentalists today believe in a flat earth. My point was that if fundamentalists were self-consistent, then they should be flat-earthers. They believe the Bible writers were inspired in their descriptions of natural events (including creation and the flood). Thus, they should believe it when Bible writers write from the flat earth perspective. What is the basis for denying that the earth is flat, regardless of what the Bible writers believed when they wrote it under inspiration? If you say no fundamentalists today believe it, what is the basis for that disbelief? Isn’t it science? Then, why do fundamentalists accept scientific findings about the shape of the planet, yet refuse to accept scientific findings about the age of the history of living things?
(P.S.--if you don't believe the Bible teaches a flat earth, then just where do you think its frequent references to the "underworld" were pointing to?)
Beth,
You need to read the section I posted above on "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck. There is absolutely no foundation for the idea that science and religion need to be separated. Einstein didn't think so as you know from his famous quote. Neither did most founders of scientific branches. Science/history can say somebody in history "did something". That doesn't end science. There's much more on how they did it, the results, methods, and other things to investigate. Same with God. Evolution is trying to act like it can be integrated with Christianity to win more adherents. But, the fact is that evolution causes MANY to lose faith in the Bible which has an INFINITELY more credible track record than either evolution or science. Beth, I could and would actually consider believing in evolution and modifying other beliefs if it could really provide any kind of conclusive irrefutable scientific proof. But, so far there is no really solid observable proofs that it can even happen, let alone did happen. There are TRILLIONS of confirmations of creation science's predictions. So basically, there is no rational reason to support evolution unless it can match the accomplishments of creation science in providing actual observable evidence of it's major distinctive claims.
Bryan
Elaine,
The Bible predicted the fixity of kinds millenia ago when spontaneous generation was the reigning ideology as well as many other scientific things that have now been conclusively proven. We have trillions of observable confirmations of the fixity of kinds alone. Evolution doesn't have even one observational case for it's major distinctive claims (macro-evolution or abiogenesis).
RT,
Thanks for your "defense" :). And I can respect many evolutionists even though I disagree with them strongly as well. But, I am not naive RT. I will agree with you in an instant that I am not infallible and that I am not a great expert in creation science due to having only one life to live and so many topics that I want to know about well. But I am a voracious reader and have found and developed ideas on numerous ideas that are all focused on improving life. What I write here is often very rushed due to being under the cruel burden of massive unjust debt due to immoral liars. If someone would pay that off, I could have time to do things a LOT better, more in depth and more persuasively (also several times I've written things in MS Word and when I copied them here, all the paragraph separations, etc. were lost.).
Chuck and RT,
Where do you think we were in grade school together? I don't at present recollect going to school with a Chuck, but I'm sometimes called the absent minded professor :).
A1) Sometimes my posts are on one topic or in response to one person such as the recent one to RT. Sometimes not. Is that a crime? More importantly why do you even ask this of only me when others are doing the same thing. It's really a trivial red herring Chuck instead of engaging with facts and providing real evidence of where you think I'm wrong (which I CAN be convinced of and have been by some evolutionists in the past and I thanked them).
A2) Yes, I QUICKLY confess and give credit to using the arguments of others. Newton stated that if he had seen anything new it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. I am no Newton, but many of my ideas are from giants of science past AND present and I give full credit to them. This is actually a double standard Chuck since almost none of the arguments I've heard from evolutionists here are original with them either. I've heard nearly all of them many times before. But, I don't mind that. ALL scientists, and I do mean ALL, use ideas of those who've gone before them. They sometimes add a bit, adapt or modify as I've done and as some evolutionsts here have done. But, we ALL rest on the research of others. Chuck and others. Do you think it's possible to get away from these logical fallacies and double standards and actually deal with facts and evidence and accurately identify assumptions??? I will quickly agree there are assumptions on my side. But, most evolutionists know very little about logical fallacies and assumptiosn that they are depending on far more than creation science does.
B) There are a number of original thoughts in my writing as well as things that I've personally written and some is "copied and pasted" from my own arguments with other atheists/evolutionists in order to save time so that I can spend significant time with my daughter, be a good father/husband and also present some ideas that need to be understood by all evolutionists. I make no apologies for copying and pasting for the above reasons and also because ALL scientists refer to the work of others as in A above. But, my thoughts on dating for example are extremely unique in that I think that both sides are engaged in almost lots of speculation and very little conclusive science unless the dates are corroborated by credible historical witnesses. There are a number of other unique thoughts that I've written if you will read things honestly. I know people don't like to admit that they have claimed to be scientific but are actually using more of the faith that they criticize others for using. Most evolutionists and atheists respond with ridicule, ad hominem fallacies, straw men and red herrings just like you have instead of dealing with the actual facts and arguments. That's frankly not very honest, but it's common. The more well-read evolutionists and atheists that I've debated will quickly agree that they are using faith and assumptions in some areas and then we can get on to the data and science and comparing the evidence with the theories. But the majority of atheists and evolutionists don't even realize that they use every bit as much of faith as creationists. The establishment has lied to them and hidden things from them just like most establishments thorugh history have tried to ban or hide the truth about rival theories (and Christianity and SDA have also done similar things).
You may have read the so called "debunkers" opinions. But, did you by chance go further and read any rebuttals to these debunkers? Did you critically analyze the "debunkers" ideas to see if they actually match reality and are observable or do you like many people just believe anything critics of an idea that you don't agree with say. That's very superficial, but it's what most people do.
You may have heard some of my arguments, but you have NOT heard all of them and I'm 99% certain you aren't aware of the most important websites, materials, videos I've mentioned(such as Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions, Veith's videos, Dr. Walter Brown's book and especially not the philosophy of science and the tremendous amount of logical fallacies upon which evolution depends, nor www.thedarwinpapers.com (ch. 2 which shows Darwin stole his ideas from creationists or ch. 12-14 which provide MUCH confirmation that evolution was the foundation of Nazism).
You and other evolutionists should read books like Stephen J. Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" (he was an ardent evolutionist, professor of biology at Harvard by the way) that told the story of one of the greatest scientists of century who did a LOT of "research" that was heralded as the most objective research ever. He collected hundreds of human skulls, measured them, assumed that size correlated to intelligence (as well as other things), then made great pronouncements about which races were more intelligent than others. He had all kinds of fancy charts "proving" his theory and was lauded all over the world. His work was used as a basis for racist ideologies in many places and this combined with many evolutionary ideas was used by the Nazis as scientific support for their genocide. But, he failed to understand that fancy charts do not science prove. He failed to understand that brain size does not automatically determine how intelligent a person is. His failures (and others of the time) to understand his assumptions and admit them and explain them cost many people their lives. His collection of skulls itself was biased since in measuring white skulls he used mostly large germanic ones, while when measuring other races such as the Indians he would use the smaller Incan skulls instead of large Iroquis skulls. But, even before that his reification of numbers into assigning intelligence was deeply flawed. This gigantic assumption turned out with time to be VERY false (Einstein for example had a fairly small brain) and evolution all the time makes similar assumptions some of which have already turned out to be false and more will be proven in the future.
This leads us to another important point. A LOT of evolutionary research, esp. on humans gives serious biological support for racism and has been used in this way OFTEN. Gould himself wrote:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Stephen Jay Gould,
'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
Racism and developing the superman race was the primary foundation of Nazism as well as evolution being a primary foundational philosophy of both Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and others like them.
Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionist wrote: "The German Fuhrer…is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Evolution & Ethics, p. 28.
Himmler said Nazis ‘value people racially’ and ‘bodily’, like in ‘animal breeding.’ They must ignore ‘the Christian theory... which ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused… racial decay….’(Padfield, Himmler, pp164-8)
Himmler wrote that the Nazis must ignore “the Christian theory”. What theory was that? He was talking about the Bible’s doctrine that all people are created equal (Colossians 3:8-14, Galatians 3:26-28, II Peter 3:3-6, 1 Thess. 5:21, Philippians 2:3, Matt. 25:31-46, John 15:12-17, etc.). This idea was the foundation of the United States constitution. Unfortunately, some Christians didn’t follow this in their lives (the racism and slavery in early America for example). But, many Christians were the pioneers in creating equality. There are some very admirable evolutionists in moral areas like this. But, Christian theory points explicitly away from racism towards equality. Evolutionary theory points directly towards racism and has often been used to justify horrible injustices that nothing in all history can compare to.
Darwin himself wrote: “At some future period… the civilized races of man will… At some future period,not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world..” In 1830, Tasmania - Whites killed almost all aborigines. Darwin approved! He said: “This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable” and now Tasmania “enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population” (The Descent of Man, chapter 6, The Voyage of the Beagle, chapter 19, pp 430,424).
The Jewish scholar Edward Simon wrote, “I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."
Again, this does NOT mean that all evolutionists are evil or immoral. I know some very moral and self-sacrificing ones. But, it DOES mean that the theory leads towards some very immoral concepts and actions and that people who believe in evolution are more likely to follow that philosophy into injustice and crime and other kinds of immorality EXACTLY the same as it is true that those who watch crime a lot in the media are more likely to go out and commit crimes (there are a lot of qualifications to that such as education level, stress level, family background, etc. but it is in general true). The idea above is just one of several immoral philosophies that evolution causes many people to adopt. And the millions of people who have died due to evolution is just one of many very tragic effects of evolution.
Most serious of all are these two facts:
1) If evolution/atheism is true, there never will be any justice done for people like Hitler/Stalin/Mao as well as many others. Their victims have lost out on life and the entire universe is nothing but a massively unjust and cruel place for billions of lives. Evolution destroys the concept of responsibility for our personal actions. It's survival of the fittest, law of the jungle. If you can get away with it on the human level, you're scot free. This has been understood by MANY MANY students who were ingrained with evolution and is a direct cause for a significant amount of the increase of crime and immorality that has exploded since evolution began to be taught in schools.
2) MANY evolutionists state that evolution caused them to lose faith in God. The Bible has literally millions of confirmations of it's truths that evolution can't compare with and even science in general can't compare with in terms of accuracy. We also has numerous indisputable confirmations that the supernatural realm is real. Evolution is one of the most useful tools on the planet in separating people from faith. I have testimony from a former Satanist who was told by high level satanists that they support as much as they possibly can the teaching of evolution because it is so effective at separating people from faith in God. They also state that Satan was involved in developing some of the theories of evolution. Please note that this is not from CHRISTIAN sources. This is what the SATANISTS are saying. If you want to read the story directly, go here.
http://english.sdaglobal.org/testimony/supnatr.htm (read especially the section on ‘Satan's Great General Counsel’ which refers to evolution)
A video is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7071384717786904996&q=roger+morn...
This man is a first hand witness of these things and there are other confirmations. We are in a war for people's lives where Satan as the Bible states has come down with great wrath trying to deceive as many as he possibly can, even the elect. There are literally millions of confirmations of supernatural things that show that this war is real. But, all we really have to do to see that it is real is to look into our own hearts and admit the fact as the nobel prize winning Solzhenitsyn did that the line between good and evil does not so much pass between nations and political philosophies, it passes right through each heart.
I have read hundreds of books ranging from health to economics to science to theology to education and in many fields we are gaining greater technology and knowledge, but because of the evil in hearts, this greater technology often causes greater destruction. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it well when he said, "We have guided missiles and misguided men." I am writing books on several subjects (another reason for my business). One is on Biblical economics. The reason why 1 child dies every 3 seconds is directly because of the evil and greed in people's hearts. God actually set up an economic system that has in practice proven even in the last century to eliminate poverty on the scale of nations. It has largely been ignored and rejected.
Whether it's in health, economics, marriage, leadership, science or whatever area...when God's truths outlined in the Bible are ignored and rejected, massive numbers of people suffer enormously and this is indisputably proven by billions of cases throughout history. THIS IS THE MAJOR REASON why I spend time discussing issues like this with people that I think might be open minded enough to consider changing. Christians are sometimes not that different from non-Christians. They ignore and reject God's instructions for the best life in many cases just like the Jews did. So, I'm not defending Christians. And I apologize for the actions of Christians who have hurt and abused others...maybe even some of you. We are not perfect. But we realize that to really make life better. We and everyone needs a Saviour with REAL power to destroy the sin in lives that causes so much suffering. If any are honest, this is just the most indisputable fact. Sin causes horrendous suffering. Evolution acts like suffering and brutalism are parts of the natural process. I'm sorry, but if I look into a child's eyes who is dying because he can't get medicine that costs $1, I just can't accept that. I will NEVER EVER accept that injustice is natural. And those who refuse to accept that injustice is natural as evolution explicitly teaches, are the ones who like John Newton and Abraham Lincoln, ended slavery, who have established orphanages and improved hospitals. They have started whole new branches of science like Pasteur. They have sacrificed their lives to start schools in far off countries. Yes, there are evolutionists who have done good things...but the amount of justice and opportunity and human rights championed by Christians in SOOOO many areas can never be equalled. For sooo many reasons including this one...even if there were no heaven (I am sure there is), as Pascal said in his famous wager, it is best to be a Christian because you have the best life on this planet anyway. And if heaven turns out to be real, then you have life forever too.
I really can't write much more after this..and I shouldn't be writing this..but those who believe evolution have GOT to understand that it is directly connected to the war between Christ and Satan for souls and that the observable science doesn't even begin to support it's claims and that there is nothing that can even come close to comparing to the accuracy of the Bible and the value it has contributed to humanity in so many ways and so the Bible is the source that we should trust above all things. Human wisdom changes with the wind and often causes MUCH harm. God's wisdom doesn't change and gives innumerable measurable, quantifiable and observable and objectively scientific benefits to life as well as many others. Evolution is one of many philosophies that directly destroys these benefits that God intended for our lives.
Bryan
RT,
Evolution is a non-directed process according to my textbooks. I understand why you disagree, you believe in God. You got to fit God in somehow.
I don't think we just have to believe in the God of the gaps only. Just because there is a materialistic theory, doesn't mean we have to accept it right away.
"It provides an explanation that does not require God. And it happens to work very well. That is what science is supposed to do because, by explaining it in material terms, you can continue to learn more about it"
An explanation is only a hypothesis. That explanation needs to be able to be tested. If it can't be tested then why believe it is true? Especially when it is contrary to our previous belief. Why not raise the standard? The only answer you have given to this question is because science shouldn't make an explanation that includes God. Isn't that a non sequitur? I just had to use those words 'non sequitur' :), they seem to be the flavour of the month.
You made a semi-attempt to persuade me that it is falsifiable. But I have not accepted that yet - I addressed that point by point.
I want to know if it is testable. As you can see my standard for this is high, and I have not seen that it can even be properly scientifically tested! Do you really believe that it is proven correct, beyond reproach, millions not thousands? If so, what convinced you?
Bryan, I KNEW you couldn't do it! Over 200 lines and multiple topics in your post. Should I even bother replying to someone who cannot respect a simple request? Let me say this: If your next post does the same, then you WILL have lost the chance to dialogue with THIS evolutionist, and that will be on YOUR head, so if you truly care about the salvation of my soul, maybe you should think twice before replying with a book.....
As for my holding you to a higher standard, I am not. I made the request of everyone on this thread/forum, not just you. You have simply been by FAAAAAAAAR the worst offender, so I singled you out.
Since the bulk of your post focused on the negative effects of evolution theory, especially as related to nazism, I will confine my response to that.
You basically assert that the Nazi's attrocities can be blamed on evolution. This charge has ALREADY been answered earlier in this thread. I guess you either didn't pay attention or ignored that rebuttal. But what it boils down to this this: Bad people do bad things, any theory is relatively insignificant in CAUSING them to do what they do, no matter how much they may use it to justify themselves after the fact. If that theory had not been around, they would have justified it with some other rationalization (in fact, do you know where people have traditionally gotten their rational for racism? The BIBLE).
If you are blaming evolution for the holocaust, then I guess you are blaming christianity for the inquisition? For the crusades? For the treatment of the American Indians by the early settlers? The list could go on and on. Just citing crimes done by someone who believes in a certain belief system does not mean that belief system is at fault. The same goes for the professor who who promoted racism based on his research on skull size. The moment he drew those conclusions he had gone beyond true science, as any real scientist would tell you, so to use him as an attack on science and evolution is laughable.
One further point: You always equate evolution with athiesm. While many if not most evolutionists are atheists, they are 2 very different things. One is an explanation of what has happened, the other is a metaphysical presupposition. As I stated clearly, I believe in God, and I accept evolution. As far as I am concerned they are not exclusive. Now there certainly are problems with this position I have taken. See Beth's thoughtful post above as evidence of some of them. But I repeat: Evolution does not equal atheism, so you should be careful to distinguish in your arguments and reply.
Chuck (who went to grade school in Wisconsin, as did you, right?)
RT,
Yes, I DID answer the questions you asked in your post specifically (cells from outer space, difference between micro/macro-evolution, etc.) although I can always go into more depth if you wish :). Veith's video deals IN DEPTH with the issue of how micro and macro evolution differ and shows that macro-evolution requires the addition of massive amounts of genetic information to the gene AND that the information is precisely organized for function. We do not see this in nature and this is one major way that macro-evolution differs from micro-evolution. It's genetically impossible. Mutations and LOSS of information is seen. Addition of precisely organized genetic information for new functions across the family boundary is not seen. Thus macroevolution is unscientific while micro-evolution is scientific. A couple other links on this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp
On the "underworld", that would refer to the grave, under the crust of any shaped earth round or flat. Certain verses in the Bible could possibly be taken to refer to a spherical earth (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
) and a couple metaphors that we even use today to refer to the points of the compass (4 corners of the earth) have been twisted by critics into false accusations that the Bible teaches a flat earth. But, the Bible doesn't say speak with any specificity about the shape of the earth that I'm aware of. The problem is that certain dishonest critics decided to distort history (not just Christian history either) because they had an ax to grind. And most evolutionists accept this habitual lie without any critical thinking.
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9711.html#Creation and the Flat Earth
Next, you assert that I make claims without justification such as “The fact that science is ‘self-correcting’ is helpful, but also proves that it is often in error, whereas the Bible has proven itself far more accurate than any other book on history and even science.” What you are really asserting is that the Bible is never wrong because some believers insist that it is never wrong…That science is open to change and correction is a strength, not a weakness.
A) I have several times mentioned the fact that when the reigning ideology was spontaneous generation, the Bible predicted the fixity of variation within kinds which is diametrically opposed to spontaneous generations. There are now trillions of observable confirmations that the Bible was right. There are many dozens of other scientific predictions in the Bible. Here is a link to quite a few of them that I have compiled/written.
http://www.eslmission.org/docs/esl/Scientific%20predictions%20in%20the%2...
B) Yes, there are atheistic critics of the Bible and theological higher criticism (actually should be labeled lower) that discounts the Bible’s accuracy. But, look at what they are alleging decades ago. Nearly all of their accusations of that time are now dead due to discoveries in archaeology and history. Much of what they claim now was debunked long ago. I have 100% confidence that the new stuff will follow that same track record with time.
C) I agree that science’s openness to change is one of it’s greatest strengths. But, that also proves conclusively that what people were taught even in the recent past was in error. The more science and history we uncover, the more it aligns with the Bible’s history and scientific claims. There are millions of confirmations of the Bible’s accuracy. And where evidence has been found, it doesn’t discredit the Bible. Thus the accuracy rate of the Bible where evidence exists, is nearly 100%. Science is far below that.
D) In reference to why I cite people who believe in evolution at times, I do it because if you can find arguments and evidence from people who disagree with you, that’s one of the most powerful evidences that your theory is correct. In law courts, this is called a hostile witness and there is almost nothing more credible. This is why I think that Dr. Walter Brown’s book at www.creationscience.com is so incredibly convincing. Most of his evidence comes from evolutionist’s research. I have NEVER EVER seen any evolutionist even try to do that at the level that he has. Because of this and because Dr. Brown was himself a former evolutionist assuming that it was correct until he investigated the evidence, I do not know of any book that is more credible and objective scientifically on creation/evolution than Dr. Brown’s book. I doubt it’s possible to beat his level of objectivity and credibility.
Regarding evolution and Stalin, he was studying for the ministry when he started reading Darwin's book. A friend says that reading that book made him an atheist and he tried to follow evolution's ideals.
Was the Bible responsible for the middle ages massacres? NO. False religion was (which in ways not much different from atheism and evolution set it's own traditions above the Bible). The Catholic church is identified in the Bible as an "anti-Christ" largely because it replaced God's words with man made traditions. It's work can hardly be attributed to the Bible when the Bible labels it as one of it's greatest enemies.
Regarding God's killing of people at the flood...there weren't anywhere CLOSE to the number killed then that have been killed by evolution and atheism in the last 100 years. Much of the coal, etc. is from plant matter, etc. Furthermore, those who died at the flood had MANY warnings that they were doing wrong. They were getting so evil that the Bible says that their thoughts were evil continually. With that kind of character it wouldn't have been long before they killed off everyone who was following God completely and also killed off themselves. God sometimes acts in justice to limit the damage that evil can cause (sort of like killing Hitler before he could start the holocaust). It's a strange act that God dislikes, but in the end it actually ends up protecting more lives than are lost. The MAJOR difference though is that the people at the flood were warned of their extreme immorality and guilt that was already destroying many lives and they chose to rebel against the warnings. In the cases of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others, the victims crime was often nothing more than their appearance or their connection to the previous govts. philosophy.
BTW, one more quote on evolution and racism:
"The driving force behind Darwin's theory of origins was blatant racism, not science. Remember, the evidence that Darwin was a racist is easily discovered, he did not hide it. It can be seen in the subtitle selected for his 'The Origin of Species'. The words he chose to describe his effort were: 'The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'. That should be enough for anyone. Darwin was out to prove the superiority of the white race over the black. That goal was at the core of his stated thesis! He had an agenda, and that agenda was not scientific." Mike Carrier,
(MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)
Some have said that I'm posting too much. I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep it as short as possible. But, I have 1,500 files on creation/evolution in 1 directory alone most of which I've read and a 400 page book of compiled information from debates I've had, plus 1000s of e-mails. The above is probably not even 1% of the evidence I have although a lot of my information is not as organized as I would like it to be due to trying to do FAR too many things than there are hours in the day for and I apologize for this.
One last thing for today that is sorty of off the point. I just saw a video that illustrates dramatically my point on sin/greed causing much harm. It's not really on the creation/evolution topic precisely, but this story demonstrates the crucial point of how immorality damages lives and why we need God to see the evil in our lives and remove it. This kind of thing and much much worse results when we as Nietzche said, "unchain the world from God". From a purely practical perspective,real faith in God (or at least following His principles) is critical for a truly good quality of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/feb/19/afghanistan-unops-hosp...
The things documented in this video are just criminal and grossly wasteful. Yes, administrators should be paid fairly for their work. But, there is no need for a series of administrators. Just send it directly where it needs to go. Don't criminally waste it with bureacracy when people are in dire need of medical help. This kind of thing is one reason why churches are often a lot more effective at actually improving life on the ground than governments are. Also read this powerful essay on what REALLY works to stop terrorism and how THIS practical method is FAR more effective AND cheaper both short term and long term:
It Takes a School, Not Missiles
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13kristof.html?ref=cm_dly_lnk
When we get to heaven, I think we'll be astounded at all the tragic ways money and lives have been wasted because people make an idol out of greed (partly due to a greed based economic system instead of following God's jubilee system). I think that evolution will be found at that time to be one of the most collosal wastes of money in the entire history of mankind.
Bryan
Although Bryan did not reply to me, I see he addressed the issue of crimes committed by Christians in his post to RT, so I will follow up on that.
Basically his position is: Oh, THOSE people who CALLED themselves Christians AREN"T REALLY Christians so what they did has no affect on the issue. Again, do you not see how laughable this line of logic is? How convenient for you to parse very carefully your definition of what a Christian is, while at the same time making sweeping generalizations about "evolutionists." Nice word games, great debating strategy perhaps, but on the scale of actual truth, VERY hollow. But for the sake of argument, I will grant you that there are many varieties of "christian," if you will also grant that there are many varieties of "evolutionists," and every time you make an accusation about evolutionists that I don't agree with I can just say "well that is not my kind of evolution." You are too funny.........
But let's get past all the talk of what certain believers might do, and take it closer to home for you. Specifically to the Bible, which is where your problems truly start, I think. And by the Bible, I mean YOUR INTERPRETATION of the bible. Yes, as much as you want to talk about the bible being 100% accurate, that fact is that the bible has to be interpreted. By everyone, throughout time, even by its original hearers/readers. And it is also a fact that your interpretation differs from others, even other fundamentalists, even other fundamentalist SDAs. This FACT is almost never acknowledged by those claiming the Bible's innerrancy. And on any of these problematical texts or passages, you will claim that the other guy interpreted the "clear word" of the Lord wrong. Don't worry, you have plenty of company, "true believers" have been doing this since the very beginning. It is always the OTHER guy who is the heretic, who interpreted the bible wrong, while you OF COURSE have it just right.
Given that preface, I will make 2 statements:
First, all your arguing is based on your INTERPRETATION of Genesis, and that interpretation is much disputed. I personally think your biggest problem is in viewing it as a historical/scientific treatise on the issue of origins, which I would maintain it clearly is NOT. In other words, to put it more bluntly, you are putting words into GOD's mouth, and claiming HE said things HE never intended to say.
Second, since you brought up Racism/genocide, I assert that the BIBLE ITSELF is full of just as much genocide as that displayed by the Nazis, supposedly at the direct command of the LORD himself. The Israelites are repeatedly told to massacre (there is no other word for it) every man, woman, and child of the people they attack, not only in taking over the Promised Land, but also in their attacks on other nearby countries at later dates.
And finally a 2-part question: Do you endorse/support the biblical claims to GOD directed genocide, and if so commanded by the LORD today, would you participate in another genocide? After all, the bible is 100% accurate......
Chris I'm assuming you were responding to my post and not to RT since you quoted me.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by testable then. What part of evolution isn't testable? The part that says it is non-directed?
Chuck,
On going to school together, I apologize, but I’m drawing a complete blank (that is if you’re using your real name). I went to gradeschool in Fresno, CA, Alpine Springs Academy, WI and Texas. Did you go to ASA? It would be nice to catch up a bit on non-debate tactics if so. I’m on facebook if you want to connect.
Honestly Chuck, I have almost never heard anyone, even the most virulent atheists dictate to other how they must write as you have and esp. when I’m not even writing to YOU directly many times (ironically I teach composition, but this is not an academic forum where I’m submitting journal quality articles…most obviously). I have actually adapted some to make it easier for you since you asked. But, it’s really not your place to dictate to ANYONE how they should write. And you yourself are putting different topics in one post. This accusation is pointless really Chuck. But, I actually have tried to acquiesce as much as I can anyway.
You do make a good point though saying that I am equating evolution with atheism too much. It hasn’t been always. But, probably too much. I know that some evolutionists are religious. Most that I meet are atheist. So, I was generalizing that way too much and you are correct and that is not accurately representing all evolutionists. I’m sorry. But, I was sort of trying to focus on one element of evolution that is especially dangerous and that’s evolution combined with atheism. When you add economic problems to that mix, it’s a powder keg. So, I apologize to you and anyone here who thinks that I was referring to religious evolutionists when talking about Hitler, Stalin and Mao and associating you with those crimes. I did not mean to imply that. Genuine true religion gives people self-control which will greatly lessen the evil tendencies of evolution. While I think that evolution and Christianity are definitely mutually exclusive concepts, some people have not come to that conviction yet and can be genuine in their belief in both. I do agree with that and it’s not difficult for me to believe that they could be accepted of God if they are following what they believe is true. I even think that might be possible of Darwin although I STRONGLY disagree with his ideas. But ANY evolutionists need to admit that evolution has strongly racist foundations and implications and that it has caused a tremendous increase in racism as Dr. Gould of Harvard stated. There are things that Christians need to admit as well, such as that their belief leads them to be very exclusive. It does. But, science does the same thing. Truth in all forms is by definition exclusive. Anyway, thanks for the correction and I’ll try to be a little more accurate in labeling, etc.
The charge regarding atrocities has NOT been answered Chuck. If you had talked to me when I was in university, I might have agreed with you. Then I cared very little for philosophy. I was all into practical theology (and still am to a large degree). But, as I’ve read numerous volumes on many topics, I’ve realized that philosophy and worldview has profound results in the actions of people. People follow what they believe with actions. So, if you want to change someone’s actions, they best way to do it is to change the way they think. Buddha and Confucius put it pretty well in similar ways to the Bible:
· Buddha said, “The thought manifests as the word. The word manifests as the deed. The deed develops into habit. And the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care. And let it spring from love, born out of concern for all beings.”
· Confucius said, "If there be righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there be beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home. If there be harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation. If there be order in the nation, there will be peace in the world."
Philosophies along with the kind of information a person puts into their brains as well as the culture around them are probably the 3 largest causes of people’s actions.
Just because a person does bad or good things doesn’t always mean it can be blamed on the philosophy or science he claims to believe. I know that very well. BTW, I teach quite a bit on logical fallacies. I have many examples of true and false logical fallacies and am fairly good at identifying them. I’ve heard Hitler was a vegetarian, non-smoker, had a variety of hobbies good and bad. Those had little to do with his Nazi philosophy. Catholics claim to be Christians, but their philosophy rejects major doctrines in the Bible in favor of man made ones. There are godly Catholics and some will be in heaven for sure, but that philosophy can’t honestly be called genuine Christians when they reject so many major doctrines that God gave us.
Your example of racism does not mesh with the evidence from the Bible. There are many explicit verses rejecting the idea that one race is more valuable than another. People can only find racism in the Bible if they cherry pick a few verses, twist their meaning and ignore NUMEROUS other verses.
THIS is the key point. Are people FAITHFUL to their belief system with their actions or against it? If certain evolutionists were promoting killing people because of the type of watches they wore or because of the type of houses people lived in, etc. this would not be something that evolution could be blamed for since it is not in line with the theory. But there is massive evidence, even from Darwin’s own writings as well as those of other evolutionists that the theory of evolution has STRONGLY racist foundations and implications. It is a very short and simple logical from the idea that there are less developed and more developed versions of human beings to the idea that it would be advantageous to progress to wipe out the lesser developed forms. The actions of people who were involved in genocide are DIRECTLY in line and indisputably so with the concept of “survival of the fittest”. This is especially so when there is no God to determine what is moral or immoral. It’s a VERY short jump.
The reason the crusades can’t be blamed on the Bible is that they were done by an organization that is prophesied and predicted by the Bible to be the anti-Christ. How in the WORLD can you not see the difference in these? The Bible tells people explicitly not to murder. Someone who is committing murder (unless it’s for self-defense or by the direct command of God such as David vs. Goliath) is OBVIOUSLY not following the principles of the Bible. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all made Darwinism into an idol and intentionally tried to implement the principles of survival of the fittest on a human level. Stalin and Mao’s removal of the idea of God through atheism made that idea a LOT more likely. Do you know that Mao ordered that the Chinese learn to read by using Darwin’s book as their textbook?
When people’s actions are in line with their philosophy, yes, most certainly the philosophy can be blamed for causing it. When KKK members do racial violence, for certain their philosophy can be blamed. When neo-nazis do racial violence, yes, their philosophy can be blamed. When Hindus pierce themselves with knives and do fire walking. YES, the philosophy can be blamed. When kids play shooting video games and watch wrestling endlessly and then go out and imitate the “philosophy” they have seen, YES, the philosophy can be blamed. Not EVERYONE is going to do extreme actions. There are other factors as well. But, when actions are in line with a philosophy and not in contradiction of it, yes, for SURE the philosophy can be held responsible.
Darwin made it crystal clear that genocide could be advantageous and following the theory of evolution in his own book as I cited above regarding Tasmania. He basically said it looks cruel to us, but this is part of evolution and it gives that place a tremendous advantage because they don’t have to deal with the inferior native race. The subtitle of his book for heaven’s sake is explicitly racist and shows his agenda. Even Harvard Professor, an evolutionist, Gould admits that because of Darwin, racism increased by “orders of magnitude”.
This does NOT mean that all evolutionists will become racists. I’m NOT and have NEVER said that. But, evolution tends to cause certain kinds of thinking depending on how it’s taught. And racism is VERY much in line with evolutionary thinking. Darwin used it that way explicitly himself (although he also seems to have been concerned at times about abuse done to inferior races, but still he thought it was advantageous for them to be wiped out of existence).
Bryan
Beth, I appreciated your last post. I also struggle to see exactly how God fits into my new understanding of evolution in the natural world around us. I do see problems with a view of GOD "tinkering" with his creation, sort of like a scientist in a lab, trying to get it just right....it is very messy, and it may be correct, but I prefer to see it as HIM starting the ball rolling, and then letting it take its course from that point on, with HIM as an interested bystander/observer. This view has problems as well, certainly, but less than the first IMO. Could HE intervene? Sure, I guess so, but anytime people claim GOD's intervention in anything (answered prayers, etc) They have the VERY thorny problem or explaining WHY HE intervened as HE did, or why HE didn't intervene all those other times.....And it gets REALLY subjective, REALLY fast, from what I have seen.
I also agree with you that this GOD has to be pretty different in some ways from the ONE of our previous understanding. You say, "The closer to traditional Christianity one gets though, the more problems arise and it is utterly incompatible with fundamentalism." To which I would only add that even fundamentalism is not very compatible with fundamentalism.....they are a very ornery lot.
"I'm at the point where it is most important to me to follow the golden rule and Micah 6:8 - to focus on trying to live a loving and ethical life and asking for help from God. I'm not sure I get it but I'll keep asking anyway, trying my best." AMEN sister, AMEN to that. I think Jesus would agree with you that you have hit on the essence.....
I used to think I had all this figured out. When I was a child I knew it all, and was crystal clear on what it all meant, to be a christian, to be an SDA, etc. Over the years I have grown progressively less sure, as my knowledge and understanding of the issues involved has grown.....
"I hope someday I understand more because right now when it comes to God I feel like a 1st grader sitting in on a graduate level calculus class. Funny how I used to think I could teach that class." I DID used to teach that class (former bible teacher and student missionary here). Others among us still are teaching that class, quite confidently in fact, I guess I should cut them some slack.......On the other hand, I would not go back to that even if I could, my current understanding is problematical certainly, but better than ignorance......
I do think there is a profound mystery/paradox in this issue, and that as Tom keeps saying we cannot really understand it. Unlike him however, despite the fact that we will never really "get it" this side of the Kingdom, I do still see value in trying........
SHORTER COMMENT for both Beth and Chuck and others :).
Beth wrote: "In theory, I have no problem with the idea of God intervening in the process of evolution (as long as you aren't insisting we can see it scientifically) but in reality, I don't think it is helpful theologically. Looking at how messy the process was and is, I'm not sure what we can learn there. God seems like an inept tinkerer who keeps making things just a little different only to let them go extinct and trying again."
I agree that we should not claim that we can observe God creating things. That's nonsense. But, like much of science, we can predict what we should see if it is true and then see if we find it. We CAN however observe the principle "created after it's kind", etc. and others while we can't observe any of the major predictions of evolution. So, there are MANY confirmations of many scientific predictions of the Bible (to say nothing of archaeology, history, psychology, and so many more). I compiled just some of the scientific predictions here: http://www.eslmission.org/docs/esl/Scientific%20predictions%20in%20the%2...
This process has been vandalized by sin Beth. None of the extinctions and so much other of the messiness would never have existed if sin (the vandal) hadn't entered the world. It's really not hard to correlate biblical Christianity with what we see in nature if you accept what the Bible says as it reads. God obviously gave created things the ability to adapt and survive, etc. within limits. One researcher has calculated that all current mammals could have developed from something like 16,000 animals. God loves variety. But, all the death, extinctions, pain and suffering, ie. messiness, were not things that God intended to exist. That's due to vandalism.
You believe that God created life in the cell originally, correct? If God has the ability to create a cell, that's all that's needed to create all kinds of forms of life. Why would he sit around for billions of years when he obviously has the ability to create it Himself? Yes, I agree there is MUCH that we don't undertand yet. But, we have several millenia of evidence which we CAN look through and that is quite compelling in showing that the Bible is the most accurate book ever written in terms of a worldview book that covers all major aspects of life. Traditional Christianity however is not always in line with the Bible. In a number of areas, I don't think it is, ESPECIALLY biblical economics.
2nd, liberals disagree about as much as fundamentalists do. The difference is in my experience that quite a few fundamentalists will condemn you to hell if you don't change to follow their opinion. Liberals are much more flexible :). In that area while I may speak strongly like fundamentalists sometimes, I refuse to be a judge of anyone's spiritual condition or destination.
3rd, I'm not really a fundamentalist. I'm personally a liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, extreme fundamentalist all depending on which topic is being discussed and which group I'm being compared to. For years I was debating with ultra-conservatives, learning a few useful things, and often exposing their MANY logical fallacies (esp. straw men). Thought I'd switch back to liberals for a while. But, no matter which group I discuss things with, it's incredibly hard to find people who apply standards consistently. BOTH extremes condemn those they disagree with by standards that they themselves don't follow.
Bryan
Bryan, ASA it indeed was, and my name is the same now as it was then......Guess I made little impression on you, although it was a pretty small one room grade school and you couldn't outrun me at Dare Base........
Thank you for keeping your last post to essentially one topic, (although you protest that you didn't need to, I still maintain that if you truly want people to understand you, you need to stay more organized and focused in your postings, as a composition teacher you certainly know this. Go back to some of your earlier rambling posts and grade them for coherence as if they had been submitted to you for an assignment and I think you will see what I mean). It really is the only way to get anything accomplished in a forum such as this. And I am not dictating how you write. You can write however you want.....I just won't respond. As for there being any rules to follow, there are always rules, explicit or implicit in any dialog or debate, as you well know, your protestations to the contrary. In any case I feel we have actually begun a productive conversation thanks to you doing your best to meet my request, so I find it hard to apologize for.......
Thank you for acknowledging that you were a little fast and loose with your generalizations regarding equating evolution/atheism. I greatly respect a person who will admit a mistake, I try to do that myself AMAP. To clarify that idea just a little further, let me say that my understanding of evolution is that is COMPLETELY amoral, and non-philosophical in and of itself (How it gets USED by people is another matter completely as far as I can see). A working knowledge of physics, for example, is not an evil thing, while using it to plan trajectories for your arrows, or to drop atomic bombs may well be moral issues, but the UNDERSTANDING ITSELF is not the problem. When you are arguing against evolution, it is for me as if you were arguing against the theory of gravity.
Now to respond to your last post (and BTW, keep in mind that our posts seem to be crossing in the air, with you responding to my 2nd to last post rather than my last when you last wrote, I still have not seen your response to genocide in the bible, I am sure it will be coming with your next post......) regarding the importance of philosophy in determining people's actions. In short, I agree with you. Period. Now wasn't that easy? Obviously a person's world view will influence their actions.
However, what you see as EVOLUTION influencing people's actions I would call something completely different. Specifically, it would be a belief that One's own race is superior to others. All people from every part of the world and ethnic background believed/believe this, but it is called ETHNOCENTRISM, not evolution. Was Darwin an ethnocentric racist? Yes. But so was Luther. And Calvin. And Peter the apostle. And all those Puritans (not Catholics) who settled in New England and mistreated the natives, and even my own dear father who told me recently that we should kill every Muslim because that is what they want to do to us, etc. etc Probably MOST of the leading scientists and thinkers from Darwin's time would have thought/felt the same was as he did. Look at the actions of the European countries at that time in their treatment of peoples around the world during the Colonial period. Obviously it was a widely held sentiment. To quote Darwin's racist views and then use them to discredit evolution itself....well the logic seems rediculous to me.
Please note, I am not trying to defend Darwin, we are discussing an IDEA here (or more accurately, a theory about how the world works), not the man who happened to come up with it. If it had not been him, it would have been someone else (in fact there was someone else, as you well know if you have researched the topic at all). Do we refer to the character and beliefs of the Wright brothers in a discussion of the science of flight? Do we need to know anything about the life and beliefs of Einstein to discuss the merits of his theory of relativity? Who cares? It has no relevance whatsoever, so why do you appeal to arguments like that? I know it is a kind of fallacy, I will let you tell me which.....but in any case, the moment you start talking about that, you have stopped talking about the actual SCIENCE and are talking about something completely different.
One further note regarding Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. These were DICTATORS. They did bad things and used whatever excuses/propoganda they needed to do them. I highly doubt that any particular ideology truly guided them in what they did, other than a lust for power and selfishness, which goes straight back to Lucifer himself. Case in point would be the Stalin regimes use of communism. Can you imagine what Stalin would have done with the early Christian church's IDEAL practice of every member bringing all they had and using it to share out to the other believers? Sounds very communist to me, or certainly socialist, yet in the hand of a dictator it becomes an evil thing.....Evolution need not enter into a dictator's thinking at all, except as a means to an and. Bottom line: All the sorrow and evil done at the hands of dictators is just that: EVIL, and truth be told, it runs in the heart of every person right? You might call it sin, right? That is the problem at the root of the world's (and every person's) ills, not a belief in evolution.
Now having said all that, I will grant you that there is a humanistic philosophy that denies GOD. Obviously in this WORLDVIEW evolution will be used very differently than in the worldview of a person who believes in GOD. And quite often it will be hard to to tell where the true science of evolution leaves off, and the philosophy of evolution begins, but we MUST make that distinction.
Using your example of the scientist who measured skulls, and then used the results to justify racism....true science/evolution ended the moment he began to apply his findings wrongly (and had not yet begun when he inaccurately limited his sample pool due to his presuppositions). In other words, every scientist, no matter how well he is following the scientific method, also is a human being with a worldview made up of various philosophies, and there is a constant struggle to keep the science pure and not infected by the background philosophy, but this is true of ALL the philosophies that scientist might have, including his christianity (whatever version of Christianity he might hold). If a scientist let his Christian worldview drive his experiments or interpret his findings, then they would not be true science, and the moment a scientist with a humanistic/materialistic worldview allows that worldview to color/shape his evolution science, then at that point he is no longer practicing the science of evolution, but rather the PHILOSOPHY of evolution.
I have gotten too long winded, but I think my point is clear. The science of evolution must be separated and distinguished from the philosophy of evolution. I support the former, I do not agree with the latter, since GOD is a big part of my world view.
Again 3am Chuck. I also respect people who are willing to correct errors a lot more than those who stubbornly refuse to admit any mistakes. Even more do I respect those who are willing to modify positions with new evidence (finding these people is an extremely difficult task). Will try to comment more later..but if I knew your last name..I would probably remember you...I remember most of the classmates I went to school with (and a lot of them are connected to me on facebook so you could meet quite a few ASA friends). E-mail me your last name if possible at bbissell7@yahoo.com to jog my memory.
Bryan
In response to Beth, Bryan wrote:
"This process has been vandalized by sin Beth. None of the extinctions and so much other of the messiness would never have existed if sin (the vandal) hadn't entered the world......God loves variety. But, all the death, extinctions, pain and suffering, ie. messiness, were not things that God intended to exist. That's due to vandalism."
This is a good point Bryan, and applies equally whether your view of earth's origins/history is one of young earth with a 6 day creation or long history with many starts and stops as the evolutionary process worked its way along. What you are really saying is that sin is in the creation, and I agree. While my view of it will obviously have to be different from yours, I do believe in a personal devil and the fact that there is sin in the world. HOWEVER, I think unpacking what exactly constitutes sin/evil is more complicated than we might originally think. As a specific example, I do not consider the physical death of plant or animal life, IN AND OF ITSELF to be an evil thing, nor does the bible, in my understanding, that is why it goes to great lengths to make a destinction between the first death and the 2nd death, between our first life and our eternal one.
"Traditional Christianity however is not always in line with the Bible. In a number of areas, I don't think it is, ESPECIALLY biblical economics." Bryan, I think I would find MUCH to agree with you on regarding biblical economics, and would be interested in reading your paper, you did say you had written one, correct?
"2nd, liberals disagree about as much as fundamentalists do. The difference is in my experience that quite a few fundamentalists will condemn you to hell if you don't change to follow their opinion. Liberals are much more flexible :)."
Oh my, a sense of humor, I am starting to like you Bryan....
"In that area while I may speak strongly like fundamentalists sometimes, I refuse to be a judge of anyone's spiritual condition or destination." AMEN, and well said. Thank GOD it is GOD who sees and judges our hearts....
"3rd, I'm not really a fundamentalist. I'm personally a liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, extreme fundamentalist all depending on which topic is being discussed and which group I'm being compared to."
The ability to think independently on each issue on its own merits is indeed something to strive for.
"But, no matter which group I discuss things with, it's incredibly hard to find people who apply standards consistently. BOTH extremes condemn those they disagree with by standards that they themselves don't follow." Well lets keep correcting each other so we both stay on the straight and narrow path and find consistency in our views, and so avoid being hypocritical......Thank you for your thoughts Bryan, I find your recent posts much different from your earlier ones....just my perception? Perhaps, but I am pleased nonetheless to be conversing with you.....
Chuck
PS, Bryan, in the spirit of admitting error, my first post on this forum which took you to task was needlessly harsh and was a result of the frustrated feelings I had at that moment trying to read everything you had written and respond to it (mind you i just found this thread yesterday). Even as I posted it I was a bit regretful and wished that I could take it back and reword it more gently. I apologize for that, RT was right to reprimand me (very gently and diplomatically, thank you RT), and I appreciate that you chose to respond without excessive defensiveness.
Chuck
Bryan,
You keep harping on science for not providing evidence of one single transformation from one lifeform to another under non-directed evolution. Miller describes such an example in his “Finding Darwin’s God”.
Beyond that, though, I think more fundamental is the problem with the standard of evidence you are demanding. When we know a process takes a long time, demanding a “live demonstration” is an unrealistic demand given the shortness of human lifetimes. However, a live demonstration isn’t necessary. An adequate standard of evidence can be based on the genetic information available to us, the fossil record, etc. These do NOT indicate a designer unless you propose a designer who intentionally fools us.
This is like Gentry’s argument that the only acceptable evidence that polonium halos aren’t evidence for a young earth is to reproduce in the laboratory a process that is known to take a very long time. Focusing on only one type of proof—basically, that you go into the lab and show me the phenomenon occurring today—is not logical for a phenomenon that is hypothesized not to occur in the timescale of your experiment, career or lifetime.
To say “observable evidence is required” is trivial. That is the case of all science. However, you are saying that we have to observe the actual phenomenon happening in real time. That is NOT required! We can observe evidence for it having occurred in the past, and that is perfectly acceptable and adequate.
“creation science made predictions millenia ago that now have trillions of confirmations” – Interesting. I didn’t know that “creation science” even existed millennia ago! George McCready Price didn’t either, according to his Wiki, which says that CS started in the 1960’s. Sometime when you have the time (you seem to find more of it than the rest of us!), perhaps you can share just 1% of the “trillions” of confirmations.
Hmmm, I was going to ask about those trillions of successful predictions to...
Let me try instead with a simple question.
The White Cliffs of Dover are one part of huge calcium carbonate beds that cover a large portion of the world, as described in (for example)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/white-cliffs-dover
AIG says these may have been built by "blooms" of microorganisms in the ocean during the flood.
AIG says "White chalk is composed almost entirely of calcium (my emphasis) carbonate"
Now for the question:
Where did the CALCIUM in the limestone come from?
/Bevin
I stumbled on this thread recently and hardly know where to start. I am a federally funded research scientist (Ph.D) that sees the sheer weight of evidence against a young-earth, flood geology, anti-evolution sort of viewpoint. The confluence of data from widely different fields including geology, paleontology, genetics, biogeography, genetics, cosmology, physics, etc, all give a consistent picture of a very old earth with life forms that have changed over time. It is hard to imagine how all those fields could be wrong in a manner that would lead to a consistent error pointing to an old earth. There are no paradoxes between the different fields to suggest that any of them are wrong.
One thing that strikes me as I read through these posts is the inaccurate view of how science works. I don't have the time or interest to even begin to try to answer them all, but for instance the statement: "There are at least 80 ways to date the earth with billions of years of difference in their results (and numerous ones with with radiometric dating systems that have produced wildly different results). So, basically you can pick and choose whatever method fits your fancy." is just bizarre. There seems to be a prevailing notion that evolutionists can make anything up and get it published as long as they adhere to the prevailing dogma, and that the deck is stacked against creation scientists just because they are creation scientists. It doesn't work that way! As anyone who has tried to get a paper accepted by peer-reviewed science journals can attest, the level of evidence one needs to present to get a paper published is very daunting. Creation scientists generally have a hard time publishing because they can't adequately answer the weight of data stacked against their interpretations.
It was really obvious to those of us in science that the Dover case would be decided as it was. I look forward to reading the books on the trial that were reviewed at the start of this thread.
I have a couple other books to suggest. An excellent book on the problem creation scientists have with science and how they have really made a terrible name for themselves is Abusing Science, by Philip Kitcher. It is well worth a trip to your library. This book gives a devastating review of the creation science movement and how they have lost credibility. Creationists scientists really only have themselves to blame for not being taken seriously.
A second book that will blow your hair back is by a historian of science named Timothy Ferris. His book "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" will take you through the history and science of our understanding of the earth and the universe. It covers cosmology, geology, physics, astronomy, and so on. It will explain, in a very interesting story, how we came to our understanding of the age of the earth and such details as how the iron atoms in your blood were manufactured in a star somewhere out in the galaxy long, long ago.
Spiel
Spiel, welcome! This is quite the thread, isn't it?! I'm about exhausted by it, but find it fascinating to see the extent to which a "true believer" can cling to--and rationalize contrary evidence--his fundamentalist skewed interpretation of the world around him.
Thanks for the book recommendations. Hadn't heard of the 2nd. Maybe if I quit this thread I'll have more time to read books!
Chris,
Thanks for sharing your personal story. I may be on a similar path; time will tell. It is a frustration of mine that our church (SDA) has so much disparaged evolution and geology that we (as SDA church) have not developed a workable theology that is compatible with contemporary science. You attribute your life’s downward spiral to theistic evolution belief, but many with that belief have had a positive life trend, so while not denying your personal experience, I don’t find it compelling as a necessary cause-effect relation. All the same, the risk seems real, especially to those of us raised in the SDA church doctrinal paradigm. Can we in fact maintain Christian faith and be evolutionists? The general evidence says ‘yes’, but perhaps it is more difficult for us than for others.
I still don’t agree with the idea that ID and evolution are the falsification of each other and that if one is not falsifiable, the other isn’t either. With your definition of evolution (as not God-directed) then perhaps that is more so; I’ll have to think about it. I don’t see evolution as necessarily excluding God’s involvement, though perhaps the notion of what God is changes.
Your criticism of the tests of falsifiability for evolution seem misdirected. You are the one that wants to make ID and evolution falsifications of each other, not me. I was merely responding to the argument that evolution is not falsifiable. And remember, evolution is a “paradigm” that encompasses a lot of specific observations and ideas. I think it is these that tend to tested/falsifiable more than the encompassing theory as a whole. So, I think that the list of tests I quoted is reasonable, and while it doesn’t exclude creationism, that is not the intent. The tests are falsifiability tests for evolution, not for creation. Falsifying evolution does not prove creation (I say; I understand you disagree). If we want to devise falsification tests for creation, that would be a separate exercise.
In that regard, I agree with Elaine that we can’t envision a falsification test for whether God was involved in evolution or not, or in creation or not. However, I think we can devise falsification tests for specific predictions made by “creationists” (here I am referring to YEC). They predict, for example, that the earth is about 6000 years old and life did not exist before then. While it isn’t convincing to a person who puts faith in a literal reading of Genesis above the evidence of nature, I think there is a remarkable volume of complementary data from numerous scientific disciplines that falsify the hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old and life did not exist before then.
Beth, great post on Feb. 21! Your germ/cold analogy was a good one, especially when you consider so many OT stories of how God was said to be involved in disease! My only quibble would be your statement that, “Evolution splits from ID because ID says there HAS to be a designer while evolution says, there certainly could be a designer but we can explain it without one too.” While true, I think that we’d need to also factor in that the evidence for a series of random mutations and subsequent selective processes to explain the gene sequences found. If designed, the designer wanted to appear to be uninvolved. We can’t exclude that possibility, but I think it works against the ID argument.
Chuck & Beth,
Regarding your posts of 2/22, I feel like we are kindred spirits, dealing with similar issues and life/thought transformations. Chuck, I assume you are referring to creation of some kind of primordial DNA in limited amounts, not DNA for every species present past and present. (Otherwise, we still have to explain all the evidence for random mutation etc. in the genome). I heartily concur with your assessment of the challenges that believing God selectively intervenes presents over believing He started the ball rolling. Tough issues, but somehow I’d rather blame Chance for the death of my relative than blame God (for intervening or not intervening).
Beth, I love your perspective on how to live in the meantime while trying to sort all this out. I think that if God were to exclude someone from heaven for being an evolutionist, it would reflect more poorly on God than the poor scientist. For all the debate about Genesis, if we look at the Bible as a whole, it seems to be trying to teach us to live our lives in a responsible way with respect to each other. Focusing on that seems worthwhile.
Bryan,
Your arguments for evolution being the cause of all manner of moral ills are unconvincing. Evolution is just a scientific theory (and I don’t by that mean to disparage “scientific theory” as creationists do!). It is not intended to be the basis for morality or social/political philosophy. It is (just) an argument for descent from a common ancestor(s) through random mutation and natural selection.
One could just as well argue against religion/God on the basis of a worldwide flood (your response above fails to convincingly justify the morality of such an act relative to what evolution does), or you could talk about the role of Christianity in the enslavement and genocide of native Americans (before evolution was thought of), or the enslavement of Africans, or many, many other immoral and inhumane acts throughout history. [I see as I post this that Chuck actually has already done a nice job of hitting these points. I’ll simply add that your response to him about racism is unconvincing: racism within Christianity is not just due to an “anti-christ church organization” but was very much rationalized on the basis of the Bible verses themselves: http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SlaveryAndEmancipation/biblicaldefenseofslavery.html].
How can you blast Darwin for being “crystal clear” that genocide could be advantageous and then defend God for acting on the same belief?! If Darwin wishes to remove the “dregs of society” to improve the race is that any worse than God removing “sinners” (Canaanites) in order to give other (lesser?) sinners (Israelites) a chance to create a society more closely modeled after God’s desires? (The argument seems ridiculous on the face of it, especially if you think God has foreknowledge and knew in advance that the Israelites would go even beyond the Canaanites in wickedness).
I think we can agree that human beings have a strong capacity for hurting others (call it sin if you wish). We often rationalize our selfish and cruel behaviors by appeals to religion, philosophy, nationalism, tribal custom, etc. That is something that made Jesus’ message so appealing and also such a target of attack: he broke those boundaries of gender, tribe, race, etc. It isn’t necessary or particularly helpful (in my opinion) to attribute vast numbers of human cruelties to either religion or to evolution; the common core is a root (sin?) in human hearts that cloaks itself in whatever philosophical garb it finds useful for accomplishing its aims.
BTW Bryan, you need not fear that we will ignore all of the scientific evidence for/against evolution and/or creation/flood scenarios. I know you have read a lot in those areas, and I have read a lot in those areas as well. I think there are very legitimate questions to examine, including dating methods, etc, however, I feel we have to define our terms and make sure we are on the same page regarding the parameters before we start discussing the actual data. (This includes making clear the distinction between science and philosophy, as we have been doing, and also a discussion about the role of the bible in all this, which we have not yet really done.)
Beth,
Yeah, I guess that response was written directly after I read both yours and RTs response to me.
RT and Beth,
Where I think it needs to be testable, is;
1) Need to test where it conflicts with other hypotheses.
2) The logic of the results of the tests need to be sufficient in both a true and a false condition. The logic of the true condition needs to lead to proving the hypothesis. The logic of the false condition needs to lead to falsifying the hypothesis. Otherwise, the test is not truly testing the hypothesis.
And, perhaps it is not a fair challenge. I understand that evolution is a group of hypotheses. RT used the word 'paradigm', that maybe better. Evolution as a 'theory' is different to evolution as a 'hypothesis'. I understand the difference.
RT confirms my point. That evolution seems to be not directly falsifiable, it is only the individual hypotheses that are falsifiable.
Now, the thing is, one could take one or more of those hypothesis out of the theory of evolution, as those hypotheses are proven wrong, but evolution would still remain. Evolution as such is not strictly dependent on those hypotheses. It is a moving target.
RT used the example of common ancestor. Darwin left the door open for more than one. However, talking to biology major students, they tell me they are taught that the evidence points to only one. So, it is convenient for them to say that evolution predicts X, we find X, therefore evolution is correct. But if X is disproved, well it doesn't matter, evolution is still the paradigm.
Might as well say that Mechanical Engineering is a scientific theory. How can you falsify that theory? Some of Einstein's theories challenge Newton's theories. Does that mean the theory of Mechanical Engineering is falsifiable? I would say that it is not falsifiable.
Do you see what I mean? Those tests do not test the paradigm of evolution? They only test little bits of it, and those little bits do not prove evolution only. They are not specific tests of the theory. I think you have agreed to that already, but you still say I am wrong???
But, RT, you do not accept the entire paradigm. Just as others on this thread, you are picking and choosing parts of it. I did the same thing for a long time.
Evolution. It is not a full science or discipline, like Mechanical Engineering is. It is not like Biology. It is not like Geology. And it is not a simple straight forward hypothesis either. It's kind of this cross cutting theory.
I still maintain that it is not a falsifiable thing of itself. Just as the designer paradigm is not falsifiable. They both require faith.
Beth, You ask me a brilliant question: what exactly am I asking to be tested. I thank you very much for asking me. I think you understood exactly what I was getting at, unlike RT who maintains that I was wrong. Although RT kind of comes around and eventually seems to get what I am aiming for, when RT finally starts talking about the conflict between creation and evolution. But he still maintains that my logic was wrong?
RT, Don't take offense, but I feel you misunderstood me, even though your comments kind of confirmed what I was trying to get at.
Do you confirm or deny that evolution is not falsifiable? You seem to say one thing, but then give examples confirming my position!
In the context of the conflict between the two hypothesis - the 'facts' that these disagree on are certainly (obviously I thought?) the important point of testing. For me, this is where the strictest testing and logic needs to be applied in order to persuade me.
One of the claims made by evolution is that it was/is an undirected process. i.e. that God was not required in that process. We probably agree that this claim is not scientifically testable! But evolution text books still maintain that it was/is undirected - despite what you say RT, the textbooks disagree with you. I don't know why you defend them?
Another claim, is millions not thousands of years. I admit that I don't know this science in much detail personally. So while there are people with PhDs in zoology, biology, geology, astronomy etc, that can still refute millions not thousands. Then I still have a right to not accept it as well.
Is that not a fair position for me to take? Am I wrong to take that position?
Or to put it another way, do you personally know those sciences enough to defend against those PhDs refutations of evolution?
On what grounds do you suggest I should accept the consensus of the establishment? Do you think I am being fundamentalist and unreasonable, to ask for a high standard of proof?
JMadden, if you are still reading this blog, I want to thank you for your earlier posts, both for the strong and essentially correct stance you took, as well as your willingness to share some of your personal story and background, it was what kept me reading and eventually got me more involved......Thanks again, and I would invite you to rejoin the discussion when we get back to the scientific data.....
RT,
Sorry, perhaps you weren't maintaining that I was still wrong, you were just maintaining that I was misdirected. Hopefully, in hindsight you understand the direction I was taking, and why I was taking it.
In some of the predictions, in those tests, they certainly are the falsification of each other.
Let me put it another way, if the act of Creation was proved scientifically beyond all reproach and scientific doubt, then that would most definitely disprove evolution, wouldn't it? Perhaps if God was walking around and he showed us video evidence. No better yet, perhaps he takes us on a field trip in time, and shows us first hand what He did! That would pretty definitely disprove evolution, wouldn't it? Scientifically proving Creation would disprove evolution. How misdirected is that?
Here is another line of questions. In your discussion with Bryan, you contrast genocides with Noah's ark.
I think you were wrong to equate Gods judgement with human judgement. It was an unfair call. Are you claiming that genocide was justified, or are you claiming that God was unjust? Really what is your point?
What say you of the second coming, shall all be saved? Are we not expecting a democide of sinners?
Finally, about God's judgement, I believe in His wisdom in judgement, that even when I didn't believe in creation any more, that he still would have saved me regardless. I don't believe that I am any more saved now by believing in creation than when I didn't. He judges the heart not the head, so we can all praise God anyway.
Chris,
My point was regarding the morality of the situation. Bryan was arguing against evolution on the basis of the murderous/genocidal behavior of some of its alleged proponents. I was arguing that if this was an argument against evolution, then those arguing for YEC/flood have some problems of their own to defend against. Subsequently, I argued that if we think God is justified in genocide, then why should we question if He chose to work through the messy evolutionary process?
Back to God's field trip. If He did that, he'd hopefully explain along the way all the miscues he buried in nature.
Chris,
You said, "The logic of the results of the tests need to be sufficient in both a true and a false condition. The logic of the true condition needs to lead to proving the hypothesis. The logic of the false condition needs to lead to falsifying the hypothesis. Otherwise, the test is not truly testing the hypothesis." I think you err here. It is sufficient to disprove a hypothesis. You can never prove it. If a hypothesis withstands all the falsification tests one can think of, the likelihood of it being true is accepted as being high. It is never "proven" though. Thus, it is not necessary that the test have a 'true' condition component.
And, please don't misconstrue my remarks about evolution's falsifiability. I do see evolution as an overarching paradigm/theory that encompasses several subparts, each of which can be tested for falsity. But if none of these is falsified, then the theory as a whole can also be said to have passed the falsification test. In that case, I would say that both "Evolution" and the subparts (descent from common ancestor(s), mutations, natural selection) are falsifiable (and have passed the test thus far).
Chris,
Regarding the textbook you might be referring to, here's one of the author's testimony around the use of the phrase "non-directed." It's Ken Miller who is also one of the authors reviewed above. He actually discusses the issues around directedness and evolution more in his books. This link is long but luckily the discussion of directedness is short and at the very beginning. He seems to share your opinion and yet he is a well-respected advocate for evolution and the co-author of the most commonly used high school biology textbook (and a Christian.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day2am.html
And actually, the phrase usually isn't directed towards a refutation of God but instead a validation of the randomness of mutation. In other words, they aren't trying to make a theological statement because they aren't referring to whether God intervened or not. They are referring to the fact that mutations are random and are trying to address the popular misconception that creatures can somehow guide their changes. Like a giraffe needs to reach higher leaves so it grows a longer neck.
But, because evolution is so closely scrutinized for possible outrages, much that is stated has to be judged according to how it will interpreted by religious believers. And even statements that weren't meant to address that end up being discussed in that context anyway.
Beth,
Good point about non-direction. It can be interpreted differently by different people. It certainly implies to me that God is not required in evolution.
What persuaded you that evolution was more feasible than creation? Do you think I am being fundamentalist to ask for a very high standard?
RT,
Firstly, I apologies if I misconstrued you. I feel that you are avoiding my questions, and are rather attacking my terminology. Which I can learn from anyway, so it still has some value to me. But I am really keen to hear what persuaded you, what tests and to what standard of verification persuaded you?
OK, perhaps I should add to my definition, that the test then becomes less useful in proving it's hypothesis. If a test can only falsify a hypothesis but the test can not prove it in the context of competing hypothesis, then the usefulness of the test is more questionable, as in the context of this discussion.
Interesting point about about God's choice in evolution and genocide. Then does the non-directedness becomes God's choice? It seem like a stretch.
Well, since I have no idea what ALL you blogers your credentials are, please enlighten me.
I was able to gather that Bryan Bissell has a BA in religion, And Tom is possibly a Dentist...
How do these degree's give you authority to generalize Geology so much?
I'm just curious... I was also curious as to why, if this is indeed an "Adventist forum" why you don't want denominational workers posting to it? If that is the case, shouldn't you also ban denonminational educated people from posting as well? woops! there go lots your posters...end of discussions.
and why the "personal attacks against me? Aren't you Christians? you sure don't act like Christians online.
"why you don't want denominational workers posting to it?"
Has anyone who has been posting here since the Spectrum blog's inception, noticed a statement that denominational workers are not to post? Perhaps you might ask them why they choose not to post. Could there be an intimidating or fear factor? There are denominational employees who regularly post here. As to their educational qualifications, it is up to each individual to declare, if he so wishes.
A recent Gallup poll showed:
Only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution."
Those who attend church weekly and did not attend college are least likely to believe in evolution.
Of Americans with postgraduate degrees, 74% do accept evolution as fact.
I was directly referring to what Glen said to me:
and I qoute: "Glen Davidson
P.S. Alan Swarm, the whole point of an independent Adventist magazine and blog is to not have to run articles and blogposts by denominational workders."
If this is not ture tell me so. if it is true, well then Goodbye you are, in essence, hypocrites.
I was directly referring to what Glen said to me:
and I qoute: "Glen Davidson
P.S. Alan Swarm, the whole point of an independent Adventist magazine and blog is to not have to run articles and blogposts by denominational workders."
If this is not ture tell me so. if it is true, well then Goodbye you are, in essence, hypocrites.
There is a world of difference in someone's willingness to post, and being censored by the official SDA church before posting. That is the freedom of the press that is faithfully guarded by Spectrum: uncensored and without official imprimatur.
Well I'm new here, but you say "the freedom of the press that is faithfully guarded by Spectrum: uncensored and without official imprimatur." yet elsewhere you say to all members and to "him" that are completely blocking someone named "Ron Stone" I have no background on this, so, Why is that happening?
Alan: that is because, in the opinion of Spectrum management, and over time when Dr. Stone was allowed to post, he failed to maintain an acceptable level of courtesy. He also was not really engaging in dialog but intense and disparaging polemics. It is rare for people to be banned but it has happened before and likely will again. Freedom always has its limits. - Website Editor
Chris,
I read your answer posted on 16 February 2009 at 10:33. I did understand what you were doing, and I am in full agreement with your position. The theory of evolution can adequately be described as a religion, because it is based on faith instead of the weight of evidence. What Darwin did was to revive the theory of the spontaneous origin of life, which had been discarded as a result of laboratory evidence. Darwin pushed back the alleged evidence for the spontaneous generation of life by billions of years thus making his theory non verifiable and non falsifiable.
Darwin took a discarded scientific theory and transformed it into a scientific speculation. He went to the Galapagos Islands, made some scientific observations, drew the wrong conclusions, and made a gigantic theoretical leap into fantasyland. By removing the theory of the spontaneous generation of life from observation, verification, replication, and experimentation, he deceived the entire scientific community and thus assured for himself a place in the annals of history.
Tom,
Thanks for you comments dated 17 February 2009 at 8:35. My argument is that the reasoning behind the Intelligent design should be obvious, not only to the one who already believes in the existence of a Creator, but also to any individual who observes nature and follows the simple rules of logic. I used the example of a man winning the lottery ten times in a row. Any reasonable individual would conclude that the lottery system must have been rigged for him to be so lucky.
Now replace the ten with billions of lottery winnings in a row. Wouldn’t you conclude that this is not the result of luck, but rather the result of intervention by someone who has been making this type of “luck” possible? The human genetic code should be sufficient evidence to convince any unbiased observer that billions bits of coded information arranged in its proper order to produce a human being could not be product out of sheer luck.
The logical conclusion is that life must logically be the result of an intelligence designer. This is my view and the reason I conclude that the ID theory has no need of religion to be credible. All it needs is an unbiased observer. Believers in the theory of evolution are not unbiased observers, they have been deceived into believing that there was indeed a spontaneous generation of life in the distant past, but we can’t replicate this in the laboratory simply because this took place only once, billions of years ago, which we can’t verify.
By pushing such event into the distant past, Darwin transformed the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, which had been discredited and abandoned by scientists, into the realm of fantasy instead of scientific observation and verifiability.
The Dover judge was working on the wrong assumption that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact. Fairness required that it be treated as fantasy and philosophical speculation based on faith. If the theory of intelligent design is excluded from teaching in our schools, then the theory of evolution should be excluded as well, and for more credible reasons. This is my view of what happened at Dover.
Chris,
Thank you for the interesting observations you made on 18 February 2009 at 12:52 about the way this problem is being addressed down under. Perhaps we should try to learn a few things from Australians. I still believe, that the evidence we observe in nature speaks volumes on behalf of an intelligent designer.
Sheer luck could not have produced the genetic code and the fine tuning of the universe. This evidence is so overwhelming for me, that I would believe in this, I think, even if there were neither Bible nor divine revelation. The evidence is so compelling it leaves no reasonable alternative for an unbiased observer.
Bill,
On 18 February 2009 at 2:13 you made the following statement: “By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.” Hebrews 11:3
I have a question for you: Are you referring to blind faith or faith based on the evidence the Creator has provided for us? If blind faith, then why all the miraculous events recorded in Scripture.
My argument has been that those who reject what is recorded in God’s Holy Book have been provided with enough evidence in nature which points to an intelligent designer. Once an unbiased observer acknowledges such evidence for an intelligent designer, the Bible can take over and lead him/her to the Intelligent Designer of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
RT,
Thanks for the great answer you posted for Chris on 18 February 2009 at 3:17. I was wondering where Chris had gone wrong with his argument until I read your apple illustration. It impacted me because I do like yellow apples.
RT,
On 18 February 2009 at 3:38 you made the following comments: “Nic, you are too serious, asking my credentials to be referee.”
My answer is: No! You are the one who took my comments seriously. Please, loosen up!
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Chris,
Thanks for your comments dated 18 February 2009 at 4:51. Your argument suggesting that Darwin’s rejection of teleology makes sense to me. I am beginning to understand your argument. Thanks for clarifying what was rather obscure for me when I read your original suggestion that accepting the ID theory actually falsifies the theory of evolution. You might have hit on a pot of gold. Keep it up, but remember that some of us need to move a single step at a time, instead of making big leaps of faith. Perhaps I should stop eating yellow apples in the future!
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Chris asked:
"What persuaded you that evolution was more feasible than creation? Do you think I am being fundamentalist to ask for a very high standard?"
I'll answer your second question first. No I don't. In fact I understand the desire for a high standard because accepting evolution does complicate belief more so than a traditional creationist view. So why make life difficult if you don't have to?
Now your first question. I've been mulling it over most of the day as I've done my other duties and I've tried to think of how to be short and hopefully to the point.
And I finally realized that I couldn't answer it unless I understood what you meant by accepting evolution over creationism. I am a evolutionist but I also believe God created the universe and the world and life on the world. That makes me a creationist in some people's eyes and a evolutionist in others. There are plenty of evolutionists who share my view though and there is nothing about evolution that counteracts a belief in a creative force.
I can talk about why I don't accept a traditional creationist view (young earth, sudden appearance of life, global flood that built the geological column). But I'm not sure that is what you are getting at so I'll save space and see if I can understand better what you mean. Evolution is more feasible than what kind of creationism?
A few notes...
Nic wrote:
What Darwin did was to revive the theory of the spontaneous origin of life, which had been discarded as a result of laboratory evidence. Darwin pushed back the alleged evidence for the spontaneous generation of life by billions of years thus making his theory non verifiable and non falsifiable.
Actually, if you read Origin of Species, Darwin wrote about speciation, not about origins. Spontaneous generation is a corollary to explain origins if there is no creator, but it is really a separate issue from the process of evolution.
If you read Bryan's epistle on February 21, he posted George Wald's famous speech on spontaneous generation. I think Bryan meant this as a refutation of spontaneous generation, but if you read it all the way to the end it says:
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation…One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
So Dr. Wald posits that given enough time, spontaneous generation can happen. I don't think that is what Bryan was intending to convey.
For all you proponents of ID, what predictions does it make that are testable? For instance, what specific prediction does ID make that fits the observation that the farther you go down in the geologic column, the more different the fossils are from current life forms? Or the presence of vestigial organs (hind leg bones in snakes or whales, for instance)? Or pseudogenes in our DNA (genes that largely match the sequence of known genes, but with mutations that make it so they can't be made into proteins)? I've never heard a convincing explanation for these things.
Spiel
Spielster,
On 24 February 2009 at 3:21 you stated the following: “Actually, if you read Origin of Species, Darwin wrote about speciation, not about origins. Spontaneous generation is a corollary to explain origins if there is no creator, but it is really a separate issue from the process of evolution.”
My answer is: I do have “Origin of Species” in my library, and I did spend some time attempting to find out whether there is any relationship between Darwin’s beliefs and the spontaneous generation of life. I discovered that Darwin seems to have inherited from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, the belief in the origin of life without the intervention of a special act of creation. His grandfather was the one who suggested that life must have been originated millions of years ago from non-living matter.
So the question is: Did Darwin support the belief in the spontaneous generation of life? The correct answer is "Yes" and "No".
I will try to explain. If you are thinking about Charles Darwin, then the answer is probably "No". At least not in an explicit manner in the book that made him famous: "Origin of Species," although it could be implied by his theory and the way his followers and defenders have developed his theory of evolution after his death. Nevertheless, if you mean Erasmus Darwin, or what Charles Darwin wrote in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker, then the answer is "Yes."
But this shouldn't surprise anybody, since at that time everybody believed in the spontaneous generation of life. It was Luis Pasteur who laid the theory of the sponteneous generation of life to rest with his famous experiment.
Nevertheless, the belief in the spontaneous generation of life did not die as a result of Pasteur’s experiment, since there is no way to prove a negative. It simply provided credible evidence that given our current physical and chemical conditions, the spontaneous generation of life is unlikely to take place. Here is what Charles Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker:
*********
“You may think that this was the end of the ideas of spontaneous generation. However, Erasmus Darwin would not let go of it. It was an essential part of his evolutionary theory and his poem “The origin of society” described and annotated it. (5) Erasmus Darwin simply chose deception rather than truth and ignored Spallanzani's experiments as though they were never performed. It was not until Louis Pasteur (interestingly another believer in Creation) that spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest, just in time for Erasmus Darwins grandson Charles to pick up the batten of godless philosophy.”
*********
For more on the spontaneous generation of life, read the article I wrote sometime ago for my SDA Forum website:
“Darwin & the Spontaneous Generation of Life”
http://sdaforum.com/page81.html
You also made a reference to Dr. George Wald famous defense of the spontaneous generation of life: “Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
You probably agree with me that this is not a scientific statement, but rather science fiction and philosophical speculation, since there is no way to either confirm or falsify it. Pushing back the origin of life by millions of years is a clever maneuver to obfuscate the issue.
Regarding the intelligent design theory's ability to make predictions, let me suggest the following: A perfect polished cube will never be produced by nature without the intervention of intelligent and teleologically oriented behavior. The same could be said about a perfect painting of a human face or a perfect picture of the Empire State, a perfectly complex flying machine, or a complex coded message. You can go ahead and set some experiments designed to falsify my predictions.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic,
Thanks for the kind response. Although I accept RT's criticism that I made perhaps too general a statement. I don't know if it's a pot of gold, and perhaps I should've been a lot more specific to start with. My equating ID as the falsification of evolution was probably poorly worded to get my meaning across, because RT was right to point out that there a lot of contexts this does not make sense. Although, I maintain that there are two or three contexts it does make sense.
And I accept your point, that I should try not to make gigantic leaps in context, otherwise people misunderstand me. So thanks for pointing that out to me.
RT,
Your response to my logic that evolution is falsifiable by creation, is that God would have to explain a few things to us? It's a strange statement from a theological point of view. Nevertheless, I suspect you mean that you are confirming that you have been sufficiently convinced that evolution is more acceptably believable over creation.
Beth,
Thanks for giving me the chance to explain. Yeah, I guess I have been getting at a few different things. I agree with you that it can be complicated - with different meanings of both creation and evolution, sometimes they can be reconciled, sometimes they can be at odds.
I accept that there is a theoretical way to fit in ID with some definitions of evolution. And so I am not asking you to say why ID does not fit in with evolution.
You said: "I can talk about why I don't accept a traditional creationist view (young earth, sudden appearance of life, global flood that built the geological column)"
This would be really appreciated. I guess it is personal for some people. So if you are willing to share I would be most grateful.
This would be a good start for me, because I have chosen to believe in creation, based on my faith/religion. But, I take very seriously the criticism that this belief is in the face of good science.
My belief is that life on earth is thousands not millions of years old, not so sure about the age of the planet. So, not sure about young earth - thats a different issue.
When I had previously accepted evolution, I did not come to that acceptance on the basis of actually being personally convinced of the scientific evidence. Rather, it was based on more of an attempt to rationalise the scientific consensus with my worldview. To accept the establishment, I mean, who was I to question the venerable scientific method?
But now I think that even if evolution is possibly a reasonable explanation, it doesn't mean that it is the only explanation. So, I have made the choice to accept creation instead, as well as Noah's global cataclysm. Unless of coarse creation has been properly falsified, and if it has then I really want to know about it.
Prof. Walter Veith is an example of someone who showed me that there is credibility in believing in creation, and the cataclysm etc. Other scientists; biologists, geologists etc also believe in creation from thousands of years ago, rather than millions. These people have been exposed directly to the evidence, and still believe that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to change their beliefs. So, I think my current position is not unreasonable.
Nic I'm not sure what you mean by perfectly polished but a cube is produced in nature - just get some salt and look at it under a microscope. A snowflake is a beautiful intricate design that is formed by nature. Is God personally designing every single snowflake or did God set up the laws of nature that could produce one using those laws of nature? And is it more conducive to study a snowflake by saying, "There is no way natural processes did this - God had to do it because it looks designed," and then go home, or to say, "What processes in nature caused it?" and then look for those processes? (I have no idea how to punctuate that sentence.)
One of the problems with your argument is that we can never rule out a "designer". You can grow salt crystals in the lab but you can't say a "designer" wasn't putting it together in some undetectable way while your back was turned. You can explain how a snowflake is formed using natural causes but you can't say God wasn't putting the finishing touches on every flake.
We can know nothing about a designer through natural methods of study. And so that designer can be doing all sorts of shenanigans that are completely undetectable to us and therefore really pretty useless in terms of science. There could be millions of undetectable little green men making my eyes blink every few seconds. I can't rule that out if, by definition, they are unknowable through our methods of studying the natural world. If my religion insists on little green men then it is very important that they are there, but the hypothesis is useless to science.
Nic,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, one possible corollary to the theory of evolution is the requirement for spontaneous generation to start life. It just isn't really an accurate that Darwin originated the idea or that it is required by the theory of evolution. There are many strong evolutionists that also believe in a creator.
My point regarding Wald's speech was that Bryan probably didn't understand what Wald was proposing when he cut and pasted it into this thread. Pasteur's experiments are absolutely true given the time frame and conditions of his experiments. We don't know what conditions may have been like in isolated locations in the distant past. Perhaps there were conditions that could lead to some self-organizing, replicating biological material. I don't know, Wald didn't know, no one knows at this point.
For a theory to have any validity, it has to explain the world around them. The ideas you put out to test aren't something that has happened in the natural world, so they are not useful for developing a theory. On the other hand, there are many instances of things in the world that are less than perfect, so ID does have to explain them.
Spiel
Beth,
On 18 February 2009 at 12:01 you attempted to explain how evolution works with the following argument: “What many people don't understand is that mutations may be random but selection is not.”
My answer is: If natural selection is not random, this means that it is goal oriented behavior. Goal oriented behavior requires intelligence, which means that you are in agreement with me that the fine tuning of the universe and the complex and orderly arrangement of the genetic code is the result of intelligent action instead of being the result of sheer luck. Deciding and selecting which random mutation might be beneficial for the universe to exist and for the development of life is the outcome of intelligent intervention into the natural processes which gave us the universe and life in it.
When you deny chance and sheer luck for the fine tuning of the universe and the complex coding of the genetic code, you are defending intelligent design. Who does the selection? Nature! Nature becomes the intelligent designer. Non random selection is another way of saying that intelligent was involved in the selection. Teleology requires cognitive and intelligent activity.
If nature can act in a teleological manner, with a grand purpose in mind like putting a puzzle together requiring billions of pieces to be in a proper order, then what is the difference between natural selection and pantheism? How can nature be smart enough to select between billions of alternatives, yet be so dumb as to rely on random mutation? I think that the more you defend natural selection, the more appealing pantheism becomes to me. With pantheism, you have no need to rely on blind chance, which random mutation actually is.
As you can see, what the defenders of the theory of evolution have tried to avoid, they are forced to accept. They attempted to ostracize intelligence and push it out the front door, but were forced to let it back in through the back door. They can’t rid themselves of the fact that life on planet earth is the result of goal oriented behavior, which in turn can exist only with the intervention of intelligent operation of either nature or else a designer.
Natural selection becomes the intelligent designer. All evolutionists have accomplished was to rename the intelligent designer with an alias: natural selection. They have gained nothing but obfuscation and an appearance of having saved face when in fact they have merely accepted the same enchilada under a different name.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Chris,
Thanks for helping me narrow things down. It makes it easier to be short but still not easy :)
"Weighing the evidence" is an interesting thing isn't it? In these conversations we often call for evidence and we end up with dueling websites which accuse the other of all sorts of nefarious doings. I am not a biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, and geologist combined. I don't have the time, energy, or expertise to analyze every argument and every published paper from every field. So what is a reasonably intelligent person supposed to do?
I read and read like many people do and I read evolution not as portrayed through the eyes of those trying to discredit it but direct. That was very helpful in seeing why scientists accept it.
Something that helped me to evaluate the claims of strict creationists was the concept that evidence needs to stand on its own apart from religious belief. In other words, if God did create all of life suddenly a few thousand years ago, we could certainly judge whether life did suddenly appear in that time frame apart from God creating it. And if there was a reasonable amount of evidence supporting that hypothesis, then scientists who were not motivated by religious belief would be promoting it as well as those who were believers. There would be a healthy dialogue with papers flying back and forth. There would be a lack of consensus with positions staked out.
Instead, there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is very old, that life in its present form did not suddenly appear, there was no global flood and it certainly did not produce the geological column. You are not going to find a graduate level trained scientist in these fields who supports the strict creationist hypotheses and who is not religiously motivated. And you are going to find plenty of religious geologists who agree with the scientific consensus.
In order to believe that this strong scientific consensus around the falsity of these ideas is wrong, I would have to resort to the kind of conspiracy theories that I find impossible to believe. There is no way, simply no way, that you can get a large group of scientists to sit on information that would make them famous in the scientific world if it was true. Bringing down evolution by showing life did appear in its current form recently would be a Nobel Prize and almost all scientists would love to be the new Darwin, or Newton, someone who revolutionizes his/her field.
Except for perhaps a fringe few whose personality characteristics drive them to be perpetual contrarians, you just don't hear non-religious scientists arguing that life appeared suddenly. Or that the earth is young or that a global flood produced the geological column. In fact these ideas are considered beyond ridiculous by the vast majority of scientists in the fields, even most of the religious ones. And they don't think they are ridiculous because the ideas happen to support a Biblical view. One could easily accept any of these tenants and still not be religious. They think they are ridiculous because of the large amounts of evidence directly contradicting those ideas.
Are there a few who disagree? Of course. But making allowances for the possible handful whose personality issues compel them to be perpetual contrarians, they are all motivated by their religious beliefs. Take away the belief and the evidence should still stand. It doesn't. There really is no reason to believe those concepts unless you think they are an important part of your faith.
Creationists argue that there is a lack of consensus around these issues but it just isn't so. They try and make it sound like there are lots of scientists on both sides with legitimate claims and the evidence can support either. Again, it just isn't so. While it is true that it isn't settled for creationists, it is settled in the scientific community. And it will never be settled for creationists because they refuse to accept evidence that contradicts their Biblical view.
Then there is the actual evidence that directly contradicts those ideas and is easy to understand. There are books for lay people about the geological column that represent the scientific consensus and that show the impossibility of the flood causing it without even directly addressing the issue. They aren't written to try and attack flood geology, they just describe what has been found.
BTW, there are at least a few examples of scientists criticizing some commonly accepted tenants of evolution who are not religiously motivated. But I'm talking specifically about the strict creationist views mentioned above. Whether those are true and whether evolution is true are two separate things.
So that is a very brief (though perhaps still too long) introduction to what has persuaded me to abandon my strict creationist views. I've read the evidence for myself that makes believing strict creationism impossible and, because I can't read and understand everything, I've looked for outside confirmation of evidence apart from religious motivation. I haven't found it.
(1) "Life" is an ill-defined vague concept, and hence the whole concept of "spontaneous generation" is ill-defined.
There are numerous examples of self-replicating things that are too simple for most people to consider them alive - ice crystals, for example - yet there is NO easily defined boundary that separates the self-replicating from the living.
(2) Selection is NOT "goal-oriented", any more than gravity is "goal-oriented". Things fall because that is what gravity does. Things are selected because, amongst other factors, they survive the action of gravity. No goal is required.
/Bevin
Beth,
Thanks for that. I think you are very reasonable, I never meant otherwise.
You say "In order to believe that this strong scientific consensus around the falsity of these ideas is wrong, I would have to resort to the kind of conspiracy theories that I find impossible to believe"
I don't think you have to resort to any conspiracy theories. I certainly don't think that the scientific community is in some sort of major conspiracy. That is not my claim at all. I think its a lot more subtle than that. My understanding is simply that because they have made it the rule that you should keep supernatural explanations out of science, then the evidence has really only one naturalistic explanation, without needing any conspiracy theory.
As soon as you take the materialistic worldview, then evolution is a logical reasonable conclusion. And so I would expect to see the consensus that is emerging simply based on that rule of naturalistic explanations only. And because there is a consensus, it follows that it becomes more of an assumption, and eventually accepted as fact. That fits the natural progression of human thinking (in my lay mans understanding of Zeitgeist).
I actually argued for a short time that evolution is not reasonable. But, I realised that reasonableness is not the test I should be looking at. It actually doesn't matter how reasonable it is for what really counts. So I am not arguing against its reasonableness now.
What I am focusing on at the moment, is specifically the question of if the evidence is sufficient to falsify creation. This is the most important question to me. And it reveals to you the context of what I was getting at when I said something like evolution falsifies creation, and creation falsifies evolution.
So the question is turned back onto the religiously motivated scientists - who claim that the evidence is not sufficient to do this. They are going to be the only ones to question the consensus, because they are the only ones vigorously allowing for the possibility of supernatural explanations. They are probably the only ones interested in questioning all of the assumptions. Therefore, I see tremendous value in reading there works as well, and understanding their challenges.
I agree, there is a lot of mis-construing on both sides, especially when we look at various websites. Most of it just wants to ridicule the other side, without trying to understand what the other is really trying to say. I have seen that too.
And I do agree with your point, that I should read evolution directly as well. And I do. I have some textbooks on it, as my wife began a science degree in environmental biology at university. I have Darwin's book on origins as well.
I guess at this point, you are suggesting I need to look more into dating and geology, and make sure I have a fair understanding from those points of view, about any significant claims that might falsify creation. It's a pity that they are not directed at falsifying creation, because that is exactly the claim that I want to understand.
It's only good faith to investigate the strongest positions, and not to quibble about red hearings, straw men and the like. I appreciate that you do that. And I will try to cut through that as well.
Also, I need to defend one more thing, and that is I don't know about all the religious scientists, but you can not categorize Veith with those whose "personality issues compel them to be perpetual contrarians". He used to teach and believe evolution. For decades, he followed the consensus view, until he started to see the problems that it has with his belief system and only then he started to challenge the status quo. You attacking their personality does not help me. I don't think I agree with your general categorization of scientists who believe in creation.
Chris,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And can I say that talking about this with you has been a real blessing for me. You have asked great questions that make me think and focus and I really enjoy the process of being challenged in thoughtful ways. Takes me back to grad school :)
First off I would like to clarify my statement about those with personality issues and creationists. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was diagnosing creationists because that wasn't my intent. What I was trying to say is that creationists are motivated by their beliefs and (separate from them) there might be some non-religious scientists who advocate a young earth etc. I've never heard of any non-religious scientists in the pertinent fields who advocate a young earth, sudden recent life in its present form, and a global flood. However, I was trying to make allowances for the possibility that there are one or two though. And I would strongly suspect that if there were a couple, they would be the perpetual contrarians, not the creationists. That was what I was trying to say though clearly not well.
Now for the rest. I think of these things as two separate issues I guess. When discussing the evidence for creationist beliefs, there are supernatural explanations (God created) and beliefs that are not supernatural and should be quite apparent in the natural world (in six days). It is the latter that have been discredited. You can look for evidence of a global flood whether you think God sent it or not. It is here that strict creationism fails, not just because it invokes the supernatural.
Even if I agreed that science should utilize supernatural explanations (which I don't) I don't know how that would help a strict creationist view. Either life appeared suddenly in its present form or it didn't. Either there was a global flood that caused the geological column or not. If the actual evidence did support these ideas one could argue whether adding a supernatural explanation would be good or not but the basic premise would still be upheld. We'd be learning that the earth is young and that life in its present form suddenly appeared - just without saying God did it. Or, at the very least, we'd be hearing arguments pro and con for a young earth etc. from both religious and secular scientists.
So even if one rules out supernatural explanations, evidence could still not lead to evolution. Evolution requires a long time period. If the evidence pointed towards a young earth, evolution would never have gotten off the ground with or without supernatural explanations.
Chris, Beth - it is interesting to listen to your polite discussion.
Chris - you wrote "What I am focusing on at the moment, is specifically the question of if the evidence is sufficient to falsify creation. This is the most important question to me. And it reveals to you the context of what I was getting at when I said something like evolution falsifies creation, and creation falsifies evolution."
You need to be more specific. You need to cover the possibility that
(a) God created the world yesterday to look like it is at least 100 years old
(b) God created the world 6000 years ago to look like life started on it 600 years ago, and science has simply misunderstood something when it says the life looks older than that
(c) God created the world 6000 years ago to look like life started on it >1 billion years ago
(d) God created the world >1 billion years ago and life evolved on it
As Beth has mentioned, my advice is to focus on the breadth of the evidence (see my earlier post listing a wide range of evidences) rather than any one area in depth. It was the breadth, not any one piece, that got through to me.
/Bevin
Bryan,
On 19 February 2009 at 3:00 you stated the following: “And Nic, yes that does include Genesis 1 and 2 which can be reconciled.”
I have a question for you. Do you think that the two stories on creation found in Genesis 1 & 2 were the result of a direct revelation from God, or the result of an investigation performed by the author of Genesis?
If you believe that it was the result of a visionary experience, then how about all the minutia of information contained in the chapters which followed, including the long genealogical list of Moses’ ancestors. Was all this information received directly from heaven, or rather passed from one generation to the next one through oral or written tradition?
How about the Gospels? Was all the rich and detailed information we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John received as result of a visionary experience or based on the memory of those who witnessed those events? How did Luke get all the information contained in his Gospel? Did oral tradition play a role in this? If we find minor discrepancies in the Gospels, why do we need to reconcile the two stories of creation found in Genesis 1 & 2?
Do we need to reconcile everything which has been recorded in the Bible? One text in the Bible states that King Pharaoh hardened his heart, while another one written by the same author affirms that God was the one who hardened his heart. Do we need to reconcile those texts? In one passage it is stated that Satan instigated David to perform a census, while another explains that it was God who did this. If we attempt to reconcile these contradictions, aren’t we violating the integrity of the sacred texts?
Beth,
On 19 February 2009 at 3:48 you stated the following: “As I understand it, the overall core of evolution is common descent with modification. Everything that is alive came from a common ancestor. That is what is considered the "'fact" of evolution. Everything is related because everything had a common ancestor.”
I have a question for you: How come you did not even mention the other possible explanation for the same geological facts: common design? As far as I am concerned, the Cambrian Explosion fits much better with the theory of a common design instead of common ancestry with modification.
The common design explanation is simpler because we do not need to search and hope to some day find all the billions of missing links in the geologic column. All the major forms of life appear fully formed and recognizable as the forms of life present today, with minor changes due to what is commonly known as micro-evolution.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Bevin
To start with, I am wondering what is the actual evidence that our traditional view of creationism is wrong. A lot of people are saying that it is wrong, so I want to know why is it wrong. I won't accept it just because lots of people are saying it.
You might say that I have become a doubting Thomas when it comes to evolution, I want to know what the facts are. These have to be sufficient to properly falsify creation. There is a lot of suggestive evidence accumulated for evolution, sure, but that is not sufficient reason for me, if all of that evidence is simply suggestive and if it is not conclusive of itself.
I'll restate what I generally mean when I say creation, and it is I guess more the traditional view. Although it is not necessarily about the age of the planet - so Young Earth Creationism doesn't quite fit the argument. It is to do with the claim that life existed millions of years ago, rather than coming into existence thousands of years ago.
Beth and Bevin,
I also have religious problems with accepting that death happened to animals in nature before human was even existing. That suffering existed before human sinned. And that evolution says that human was never in a pre-fall state of existence, as in the garden of Eden. I believe that when human sinned, that the whole of nature suffered because we caused God to withdraw His sustaining power from our dominion. All of this has further consequences to our belief system as well.
Proof that life existed millions of years ago is what I require. The evidence needs to be absolutely unquestionable as regards its interpretation of the fact, otherwise I am in my rights to reject it.
You said: "my advice is to focus on the breadth of the evidence (see my earlier post listing a wide range of evidences) rather than any one area in depth. It was the breadth, not any one piece, that got through to me."
This is not sufficient for me any more, to be honest. I used to go for this, but no longer. So I can't accept the premise, unless I have misunderstood you. Just because a reasonable explanation can be made, and just because the majority take it, if it doesn't properly falsify creation, then I don't have to accept it.
I might be able to accept that it is reasonable, but I don't have to accept that it is necessarily correct, especially if there are questions about it.
The criticism that some make, and what I take very seriously is that I accept false religious interpretations over factual truth. But, I don't know what the actual facts are that falsify my beliefs. And those making those criticisms do not provide that evidence that supposedly falsifies my beliefs - so their criticisms are harsh. I have looked before, and will look again. But you have to understand that words like majority, confluence and consensus are not sufficient to falsify an hypothesis. If there is still any reasonable case against the prevailing paradigm of evolution, then I am not unreasonable to make the choice to keep believing in creation.
It is not a vote, like in a courtroom when there is a jury that has to decide a case based on reasonableness. To put someone away (or a belief that I love) - it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt that creation is wrong.
So, to be fair to you Bevin, I will look through those sites you provided. But I am not so confident I will find what I am asking for, because you say "rather than any one area in depth".
Beth,
I agree that scientific proof can not consist of supernatural, otherwise by definition, it would no longer be supernatural. So I agree that the evidence is not for or against the act of creation, rather the results that life is or is not millions of years old.
You said referring to creation evidence that "It is the latter that have been discredited. You can look for evidence of a global flood whether you think God sent it or not. It is here that strict creationism fails"
A flood is different to creation. So even if a global flood was falsified, it would not falsify creation. But, is this the evidence that persuaded you? Walter Veith, and Walt Brown and many others have scientific cases for a serious cataclysm. One in which the model is not usually understood properly when it is being rejected by evolutionists - at least in the attempts that I have seen. Have these cases been falsified to your knowledge? If so, I would like to see that as well.
Nic,
I know what you mean about the Cambrian Explosion. Veith shows quotes of evolutionists saying that the evidence suggests more of a grass lawn than a tree of life. This admission is powerful stuff.
Pogo,
On 19 February 2009 at 8:42 you raised a couple of fundamental questions dealing with origins: “Why should there be any "line" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? What would such a line consist of?” and “If there was no literal creation, that implies no literal Fall. Would there then be any need for Calvary?”
The main reason for the need to differentiate between what is labeled as micro and macro evolution is because we do observe micro evolution in action. Bacteria and viruses do evolve, and humans do breed horses, dogs and other animals.
Nevertheless, observation seems to indicate that bacteria and viruses do not evolve into a different type of life. Likewise, horses continue to be readily identified as horses in spite of all the breeding they are subjected to.
The same is true about dogs and other animals. Besides, when we analyze the fossils we find in the Cambrian geologic layer, we discover that all the major forms of life appear there fully evolved and are easily identified as the animals we know today. From this, I conclude that the most logical and simplest explanation of the geological data is that there was a common design.
Regarding the second question you posted the answer is: if we opt for the common descent with modification advanced by Darwin and his followers, then we must conclude that the idea of the original sin, the need for a Savior, and the promise of eternal salvation from sin do not fit into the evolutionist schema. There is no logical way to reconcile the theory of evolution with true Christianity.
If there was no original fall, there is no need for a Savior, not hope for salvation and a Second Coming nor eternal life. Life looses its eternal significance. There is no judgment day nor fear of having one day to face a Creator to whom we need to give an account for our moral failings. No need for either repentance or forgiveness. This life is all we will ever get.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Chris,
You are right - there are theological problems with evolution. You mentioned a couple and there are plenty more IMO. And I have no doubt there are even more that I haven't thought of yet!
I agree that a global flood and sudden creation of life recently are separate issues. However, it is creationists that seem to need to link them because they use the flood to explain the fossils.
You are interested in evidence supporting ancient life. I have looked at some textbooks too and found them pretty boring. I think a good book to start with is "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald Prothero. Another good one is a new book just out in January called "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Anything by Ken Miller is good.
above quote:
"If there was no original fall, there is no need for a Savior, not hope for salvation and a Second Coming nor eternal life. Life looses its eternal significance."
but then doesn't life's current value INCREASE!!!!
quote, cont:
"There is no judgment day nor fear of having one day to face a Creator to whom we need to give an account for our moral failings."
but there would still be the need to face our fellow human beings charges if we "trespass" against them, either in this life, or for our reputation to defend later....
quote cont:
" No need for either repentance or forgiveness. This life is all we will ever get."
which would make it so much more valuable to live the best life we can in the here and now. And not have to ask forgiveness from our fellow man for our inconsiderate actions.
are we still fully convinced that the whole world must die because, in the story, a magic talking snake deceived Eve?
and if you don't believe that story literally, the loving God of the Hebrews is someday going to raise you up from the first death, show you where you went wrong, then, as you exclaim....
"OH, NOW I GET IT"...
this same loving God is going to burn you alive a final time.
is this the message of Christianity?
what happened to love, joy, peace, and forgiveness?
"I also have religious problems with accepting that death happened to animals in nature before human was even existing. ...All of this has further consequences to our belief system as well.
Proof that life existed millions of years ago is what I require. The evidence needs to be absolutely unquestionable as regards its interpretation of the fact, otherwise I am in my rights to reject it."....Chris
try googling limestone rock.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=limestone+rock&aq=2&oq=limestone
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
quote:
The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms. These organisms secrete shells that settle out of the water column and are deposited on ocean floors as pelagic ooze or alternatively are conglomerated in a coral reef
end quote
so, millions of years ago, giga billions of tiny, marine animals were sacrificed wih their limey shells in shallow seas to sink to the bottom and form limestone.
some of these undersea animals were tectonically uplifted myo to form Mt Everest!!!
from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3499
quote:
Everest is the tallest of many extraordinarily high peaks in the Himalayas, including neighboring Lhotse (27,890 feet, 8516 m) and Nuptse (25,790 feet, 7885 m). The mountain range was formed when a large land mass broke off from Africa roughly 200 million years ago and was carried by plate tectonics across what is now the Indian Ocean. When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains. The land mass, which is still moving north and forcing the land ahead of it upwards, is known as the Indian subcontinent.
The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics
end quote
check out the photo here of limestone at the summit of Everest. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/education/rockcycle/page3468.html
marine animals, millions of years older than the story of the Garden of Eden, lived, loved, and reproduced in a shallow sea
between India and Asia, but died, sank to the bottom, were compressed by overlying layers, formed limestone, and were eventually uplifted 6 miles high by the slow grinding of India into Asia over millions of years.
which is smarter:
to deny the findings of modern science?
or to reinterpret our former understanding of ancient stories?
Carlitas,
On 20 February 2009 at 4:37 you stated the following: “DNA, not even conceived of during Darwin’s lifetime has strengthened rather than falsified the theory.”
My answer is: What science has discovered about the DNA, instead of strengthening my faith in the theory of evolution, it has destroyed the little sympathy I had entertained towards it. A few years ago Francis Collins, the man who was in charge of the Human Genome project, said the following in his graduation speech at Loma Linda University: “I was tempted to read to you the entire human genome sequence, but decided not to when I figured it would take 32 years of non stop reading to do this.”
The defenders of the theory of evolution are trying to make me believe that random mutation and natural selection managed to put the billions bits of information contained in the human genome in the proper order without any intelligent input from a designer; nevertheless, at the same they credit natural selection for this incredible scientific accomplishment of putting this puzzle together. Goal oriented behavior can be explained by the intervention of intelligence and design.
Evolutionists tell me that nature did it, while ID people argue that an intelligent designer did it. What is the difference? Either way, intelligence was involved. The way I see this, the ID theory has a better explanatory power, since the intelligent designer gets all the credit, while with evolution I have to assign partial credit to random mutation and the balance to natural selection.
If nature was smart enough to make the proper decisions in selecting the right order for billions bits of coded information, yet powerless and dumb to patiently wait for random mutation to produce the beneficial kind of mutations, then I will always choose the ID alternative as the most logical explanation for what we have.
Besides, have you ever attempted to compute the time needed for random mutation to produce the right kind of mutations for ending with a human genome? There isn’t enough time to accomplish this. 14.7 billion years is not enough. You would need trillions of years instead of billions. Besides, how can blind nature make the right selection between non beneficial and beneficial type of mutations? Choosing requires intelligent behavior. Where does this intelligence reside? Can you verify its existence?
Have you observed it produce a totally new form of life? If you haven’t, then why should I call the theory of evolution a science instead of science fiction? Since times immemorial going all the way to the Cambrian geologic layer, we see the same kind of forms of life without ever nature producing a totally new form of life. Cats are always cats, mice are always mice, and horses seem to be unable or unwilling to metamorphose into something totally different.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
The doubly interesting issue about the limestone is not just that billions of animals died to make it, but that in order for those animals to have lived, the calcium that they collected must have got into the water from somewhere...
You can't just have a quick bloom after a flood, because that still doesn't explain how hundreds of feet of thousands of square miles of calcium got into the ocean waters for the blooming animals to absorb...
The other big issue is to explain the locations of similar and dissimilar fossils on the tectonic plates...
/Bevin
Nic,
you write "have you ever attempted to compute the time needed for random mutation to produce the right kind of mutations for ending with a human genome? There isn’t enough time to accomplish this. 14.7 billion years is not enough."
But the TRUTH is, neither you nor anyone else knows how to do the calculation. You don't know that 14.7 billion years is not enough - you just don't want it to be enough.
/Bevin
Beth,
Thanks for the references. I'll see what I can find at our library.
Also, I understood what you meant about evidence. You said that if life spontaneously arrived, that there should be actual impartial evidence for that. But I understand that there is actually evidence for that as well, but like all evidence, the interpretations are based on human choice and assumptions. And it is the supernatural assumptions that science is not allowed to take is where it gets challenging.
The flood does not provide directly as evidence for creation, rather it explains an alternative explanation to a lot of the assumptions made by evolution. So, it is kind of indirect evidence. So in a way you are right, falsifying the flood would give a lot of evidence back to evolution. But that wouldn't necessarily falsify the act of creation.
John,
Thanks for the challenges.
"show you where you went wrong, then, as you exclaim....
"OH, NOW I GET IT"...
this same loving God is going to burn you alive a final time.
is this the message of Christianity?
what happened to love, joy, peace, and forgiveness?"
I understand your logic, but it doesn't seem Biblical. And its not burn them alive, its burn them dead :P
Also, part of the message of Christianity, is a hatred for sin. God's wrath and vengeance are also in the Bible. This final death is better than a lot of other Christians teach! But do you suggest we should go further, and teach that no one will be lost? That all will be saved.
Part of me wants to agree and part of me is hesitant at the consequences of that thought. Because that kind of gives me the freedom to go and do what I like on this planet! As long as I don't get caught, right? If in the end we are all saved then who cares how evil I act now, as long as no one notices? No, there must be consequences, God's justice will prevail.
As to all the limestone and Everest, there are other explanations, such as a world wide supernaturally violent cataclysm, if you allow me to believe in the supernatural. I know the evidence can't accept the supernatural explanation, so science is left with the only other logical choice, that is millions of years - time is the hero in the absence of the supernatural. So I can say two things, one - it might seem like a reasonable explanation, two - but it doesn't falsify my belief in the supernatural explanation.
It doesn't even address the supernatural explanation. And I understand why it doesn't.
Always look at the assumptions. If the assumptions immediately ignore the supernatural, where the supernatural might also provide a possible explanation, then I don't have to accept the conclusions as correct.
The assumptions that lead to long time periods in that example are based on the speed of the tectonics, and the shear volume of calcite. A worldwide supernatural cataclysm takes care of the tectonics speed, and forces of upheaval required. The volume of calcite requires the assumption of the number of organisms extrapolated back over time based on the assumption that todays conditions were more or less prevalent. Who knows what the conditions on earth were like after creation and before the flood? The calcite may even have not come from organisms, or there may have been so many more organisms than we could imagine. Especially when God's sustaining power was closer to us.
To disprove creation, you also have to have a sufficient model of what life was like right after creation, and then another model from after the fall of humans and up to the time of the flood.
You said:
"which is smarter:
to deny the findings of modern science?
or to reinterpret our former understanding of ancient stories?"
I don't deny that the findings of modern science are reasonable and rational. Based on the framework they have decided to work within, there really is not much other choice. So, the absurd seems rational.
But science is limited, it makes preconditioned assumptions, like no supernatural explanation allowed - because apparently that is a science stopper. I understand that argument, so I say go ahead, and see what explanations you can come up with.
For example, I see that there is value in determining how we could put together a type of life in the laboratory. Is there any chemical pathway to get amino acids to start making proteins and RNA and/or DNA etc, starting from the building blocks. We were made in the image of God. We do have the ability to create. So why not see if we can do some of what God can do. And if we find that we can do it in a lab, it doesn't mean that God didn't do it originally. There could be all sorts of valuable revelations about ourselves that we find by doing that.
Although, I don't see much value in interpreting millions of years, except that all the other fields also have to interpret millions of years, so they can reassure themselves that they come to the same conclusions. But this reassurance is not evidence in and of itself! As some claim it is.
Also, about those ancient stories. It doesn't matter how old they are, if we believe they hold spiritual truths, then they are still valuable to us. I don't necessarily take them literally, but when evolution challenges the spiritual truths in them, then I have every right to question evolution.
Do you deny the possibility of the supernatural? How much room do you give the possibility for the supernatural in modern science? I'm assuming you are a believer in God.
Let me put that another way. If you allow science to give an explanation for absolutely everything, including cognitive, psychological, origins, planet, universe etc. If you leave no room for the supernatural. Then you only believe in the God of the gaps, and have not had any faith in God's ability to intervene with supernatural.
Just because science offers a reasonable explanation, doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right explanation. It might be right. It might be wrong but still useful as well. It might be completely useless also. I don't deny science, even if I am allowed to believe it is wrong, I can still see some value in it (sometimes).
Bevin,
"But the TRUTH is, neither you nor anyone else knows how to do the calculation. You don't know that 14.7 billion years is not enough - you just don't want it to be enough."
This is a good point, Nic is going off one of the models that current science estimates. But you are right, but follow the criticism through. Because that also means that evolution might be completely wrong. That all of this complexity could have evolved in just 4 thousand years. Based on your criticism, you can't deny that either.
Nic is drawing attention to the same fact you are. That there are problems with the model provided by evolution.
Nic said:
"Besides, when we analyze the fossils we find in the Cambrian geologic layer, we discover that all the major forms of life appear there fully evolved and are easily identified as the animals we know today."
This is really pretty misleading. While it is true that almost all of the major phylum of animals appear during the Cambrian period, that is just phylum, not class or order or family etc. That means we see examples of the very broad categories of animals but only some of them were actually like what we see today. Sponges, jellyfish, maybe a few others. In fact, the Cambrian time is noted for its really strange creatures - some so strange that they are placed in their own phylum only to go extinct during the same period.
Almost all of the creatures were sea creatures even at the end of the period. We see the beginnings of animals with backbones but they were all still in the water. At the very end of the Cambrian period we start to see the first land creatures which appear to be insect-like and a few arthropods. No mammals, no land plants until the very end of the period and then they were limited, no birds, no reptiles, no amphibians, very few fish (just very primitive jawless fish) etc. In fact very little of what we see today was around during the Cambrian period.
Thanks for helping us keep things straight, Beth.
"Always look at the assumptions. If the assumptions immediately ignore the supernatural, where the supernatural might also provide a possible explanation, then I don't have to accept the conclusions as correct."
If the supernatural is allowed, then the sky's the limit; there is nothing impossible. We cannot compare the supernatural with what we know and observe today, but "assume" that, just possibly, something ?? supernatural could be the answer.
If that is what is believed, it is completely in another different sphere: metaphysics, alchemy, or astrology and not accepted and objective evidence. It's like trying to prove Sasquatch, or the Abominable Snowman or the tooth fairy: they are believed by many, but none have satisfied the scrutiny of actual observation.
quote:
"As to all the limestone and Everest, there are other explanations, such as a world wide supernaturally violent cataclysm, if you allow me to believe in the supernatural. I know the evidence can't accept the supernatural explanation, so science is left with the only other logical choice, that is millions of years - time is the hero in the absence of the supernatural. So I can say two things, one - it might seem like a reasonable explanation, two - but it doesn't falsify my belief in the supernatural explanation."
so how does the "supernatural explanation" resolve Cosquers Cave?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cosquers+cave&btnG=Google+Search&aq...
the French Gov't explains in scientific terms how it happened.
And it falsifies the Noah flood tale...
since after the flood, we are assured that the waters were supposed to have come down....
while, if fact, Cosquers cave shows that for the last 20+ thousand years, the waters have come UP!!!!!
take a virtual tour and try to explain this in terms of a worldwide flood only 4500 yrs ago... after which, the waters allegedly went DOWN!!!!
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/en/fr-cosqu1.htm
next, take the tourist eye view of the LIMESTONE CLIFFS in which the cave was eroded a long time ago, before the ocean rose to enter the cave.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/article-lkj-18-10-03...
so here are the issues needing resolution:
not only do you have radio carbon dates going back 27,000 yrs
and
you have ocean levels which have come UP, not gone down as in the Noah tale
and
you have pictorial representations of long extinct animals, including auks, and penguins...in the Med? on the sunny,
S. Coast of France? (the answer is that even this area was bordered with glaciers 20kyo, and the colder water encouraged penguins to live there back then!!)
and
you have limestone cliffs in which the cave is located which could not have been created during Noah's flood if you claim that it was the flood which "came up" to enter the cave.
The limestone extends for hundreds of meters above and below water line.
Thats billions of tiny marine animals, massacred mega years ago in a shallow sea, compressed into limestone, then tectonically raised above sea level where (carbonic) acid rain eroded out the grotto, after which melting glaciers raised ocean levels again, flooding into the cave, AFTER the paleo painters had depicted now extinct animals.
So the bad news, is the story of Noah may need redefining.
The good news, is that NOAA offers a reasonable explanation!!!
The earth wobbles in well understood Milankovitch cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
and 20,000 yrs ago, we were at a "glacial maximum"... the glaciers had locked up so much water that ocean levels were as much as 400 feet lower than today enabling Siberian natives to cross the Bering Land Bridge into Alaska.
As the earth wobbled more toward the sun, and warmed up naturally in what Al Gore today mistakenly claims is "manmade global warming", the glaciers melted, and ocean levels rose...
which they are still going to do even if we can cut our carbon feet off!!!
rising ocean levels around the world may have flooded coastal peoples, maybe even in catastrophic fashion as proposed by Ryan, Pittman, and confirmed by Ballard in the Black Sea.
Or maybe the Persian Gulf may have flooded rapidly, drowning the Garden of Eden now inundated at the head of the Persian Gulf.
there may be real history and real science behind some of the ancient stories. but it is up to modern science to help us understand and decipher the facts from the legends, the real events from the storied ones.
Is there anything that a supernatural explanation cannot answer?
Beth,
I really enjoy your articulate posts.
Nic' post:
Besides, have you ever attempted to compute the time needed for random mutation to produce the right kind of mutations for ending with a human genome? There isn’t enough time to accomplish this. 14.7 billion years is not enough. You would need trillions of years instead of billions.
That's not necessarily true. The genome has many many parts that are repeated over and over, a surprisingly large portion of our genome is left over from viral DNA that has become incorporated, parts are duplicated in multiple places, and even a significant amount of the DNA that encodes proteins is made of stretches of DNA that are swapped from one gene to another (most proteins have conserved domains that are common in many different proteins). Your assumption is based on the entire genome assembling from scratch and presumably the entire genome encoding proteins (only a minor portion actually encodes protein).
Besides, how can blind nature make the right selection between non beneficial and beneficial type of mutations? Simple. If the mutations don't help an animal survive and reproduce, the animals eventually die out.
For those of you on this forum, if you heard that scientists had conducted numerous genetic studies that showed that American Indians were descendants of people from Siberian Asia, would you care? Would you attack the science behind genetic sequencing and the conclusion? For most of us, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter. For Mormons, though, their Book of Mormon says that the American Indians are descendants of Hebrews, which is directly contradicted by the genetic evidence. There have been several high-profile cases of Mormon geneticists concluding that the B of M can't be true and they have either given up their faith or been threatened with excommunication. For us, this particular bit of science wouldn't threaten us and we probably wouldn't have a long thread on this forum about it. I think this illustrates how our world-view, which depends in large part on our religion, colors our attitude about the conclusions of science. I think we fear that our neat little picture of the world may collapse.
Spiel
Hi all,
Am just crazy busy, so haven't been even reading much, let alone answering. Just a couple short things.
1) People need to stop with the logical fallacy that a supernatural explanation can't be scientific. That's a double standard. A supernatural action has consequences that can be measured and understood every bit as much as Darwinian evolution. Sodom and Gommorah for example were burned by fire and brimstone. We can go to the areas where those cities were located and do scientific tests to see if there is brimstone and if things were burnt. The Bible tells us things God did. We can do all sorts of tests to check if what we see in our world is what we should see if that action actually happened. This kind of accusation is a major straw man argument invented by atheists that I've met many times and it angers me so much. Creation scientists don't just answer "God did it" for everything. This is a REALLY REALLY EXTREMELY dishonest accusation. They focus on HOW God did it and how things function and this is precisely why they invented most branches of science. Even the creation event while not able to be proven conclusively from science since it's not observable has FAR more logical and scientific evidence than abiogenesis. NUMEROUS things that we would expect to see if creation were true we actually do find. The Cambrian explosion is just ONE of them. If all major phyla were created at the same time, we should see fossils of all the major phla appearing at the same time (although natural disasters ranging from earth quakes to floods will definitely could the picture some). And we DO see all the major phyla appearing in the Cambrian level. There are MANY more examples like this. They aren't conclusive because there is no observable evidence. But, they are VERY strong evidence and very rational and quite scientific AND testable theories. Accusations that religion can't be tested by science and that science can't be tested by religion are simply ignorant.
2)Spielster and others really need to read books like Kuhn's Scientific revolutions and Del Ratzsh's Philosophy of Science. I'm sure spielster and other evolutionists are smart and work hard, but very very few have been taught the history of science, how biased establishments are, how many block all rival theories no matter how scientific, and how many asumptions their faith in evolution is resting on, etc. There are top evolutionists who complain that even Ph.Ds in evolution are woefully ignorant of the holes and numerous assumptions in the theory. Every generation thinks they're nearly perfect...but subsequent generations show how flawed and faulty they were and how many scientific, logical and just plain biased serious errors they made. One professor stated that 25% of what students learn will not be true by the time they graduate. People have the most incredible faith in human wisdom which is so often proven to be in error. It's just astounding to read evolutionists words of absolute confidence/faith in evolution and ridicule for other beliefs which are not much different to the surety and ridicule for the skeptics of spontaneous generation. Very little difference. Every establishment seems to have the most incredible faith in it's theory..and in evolution, this faith is completely unjustified by works :).
3) RT, if you don't have observable evidence of a scientific theory, then your claims are not even close to conclusive. The claims MUST be directly testable. If they are, it's all TOOOOO easy to just make up all kinds of arguments based on biases that often turn out to be false. Without observable, directly testable evidence, you cannot even begin to claim conclusive evidence for your theory. Neither the creation event, nor abiogenesis can claim to be conclusive scientifically (although the weight of fossil and logical evidence is HEAVILY in favor of creation).
But when you compare the creation theory of speciation vs. the evolution theory of macro evolution, creation has trillions of confirmations that life ONLY comes from other life and never evolves beyond the family taxonomical boundary (and it predicted this millenia ago and for much of that time spontaneous generation was the reigning ideology. Abiogenes btw is actually just neo-spontaneous generation). Evolution doesn't have even one testable case.
Ken Miller's "example" of macro evolution is a joke because he is dishonest in his definitions. I just read an article where he says that macro-evolution is speciation. Sorry, but blurring definitions there because he KNOWS there isn't any observable evidence of speciation beyond the family boundary and so has to fudge and redefine words to make his theory sound a slight bit rational. Many evolutionists are doing that these days and it's quite dishonest.
But, I'll ignore definitions since those are just human made constructs. What is required is that evolution provides OBSERVEABLE PROOF or TESTABLE proof of an UNBROKEN genetic line of grandmothers, mothers, daughters, grandaughters, etc. etc. evolving from one species of animal AT LEAST across the family boundary. That's the MINIMUM proof that evolution needs to be considered solid conclusive science. If you then ask me how is it possible to test/prove something with observable evidence that takes millions of years, you've just admitted that evolution is untestable and therefore not anthing close to conclusive science. But, actually, evolutionists are welcome to use insects and bacteria, etc. which have very short lives and should easily provide proof within a few years or decades if evolution were really true. If they can't prove that these extremely shortlived creatures can evolve, there's just not the least bit of logic in theorizing that long lived animals can evolve. Without observable/testable proof and an unbroken line of descent, etc. evolution is just a bunch of circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the biases of the scientist.
Einstein wrote that common sense (ie. logic) is just an accumulation of prejudices. History proves that MANY times, scientists did all kinds of hard work, made complex charts and systems for theories that ultimately turned out to be false. They were not stupid scientists at all. They just made all sorts of unwarranted assumptions and didn't think as critically as they should have about their own philosophy. Because of this, morphology and all its charts are not even close to conclusive proofs for evolution. Furthermore, they can be viewed as proof for a common designer just as easily as they can for common descent..so it doesn't rule creation in the LEAST. If you can't rule out another theory, then you don't have conclusive proof. You just do NOT have anything close to that.
Bryan
Spiester wrote this:
"One thing that strikes me as I read through these posts is the inaccurate view of how science works. I don't have the time or interest to even begin to try to answer them all, but for instance the statement: "There are at least 80 ways to date the earth with billions of years of difference in their results (and numerous ones with with radiometric dating systems that have produced wildly different results). So, basically you can pick and choose whatever method fits your fancy." is just bizarre. There seems to be a prevailing notion that evolutionists can make anything up and get it published as long as they adhere to the prevailing dogma, and that the deck is stacked against creation scientists just because they are creation scientists. It doesn't work that way! As anyone who has tried to get a paper accepted by peer-reviewed science journals can attest, the level of evidence one needs to present to get a paper published is very daunting."
1) With all due respect for your high level of training (and I again affirm that you are very smart and intelligent), I believe you are the one who doesn't understand how science works and how the "truth" of one generation is often given up or radically changed in a few generations and sometimes much less. Read the two books I've recommended for MUCH confirmation of them. I don't think either of them is a creationist and I think they are not even Christians. Or just watch some of Dr. Veith's videos, a former evolutionist with a ph.d. in zoology who was every bit as convinced as you are that evolution is scientific and he loved to destroy belief in creation, but after looking behind the theory for the real evidence and conclusive proof, he abandoned the religion of evolution to become a creationist because the actual observable testable science supports creation theory far better than it does abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. If you read the 2 books I've recommended, you will understand a lot better how science really works and how much bias actually is involved in what most people think is objective science.
The simple truth is this Professor Spiel, if a theory that makes a hypothesis about God as creator is called unscientific by the establishment JUST because it refers to God and all the scientific evidence (that is EVERY BIT as scientific as that of evolutionists) is ignored, a level playing field is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY a myth. If I were to follow the exact same principle in a different time era of 2-3 centuries ago (or even now) and ban all things connected to Darwinism, you would right call "foul" and the playing field would not be fair at all. The main point is that science is not and never was solely materialistic. People believe that now because that's what they've been indoctrinated to believe and most don't know how to question what they've been taught very well. But, there are NUMEROUS cases where facts from religions (not just Christianity) can be tested by science, history and other tests as well. Materialism is just another philosophy which tries to prevent investigation of rival theories so that it can keep itself dominant.
2) I don't believe evolutionists are stupid. Some are very smart. There are all levels of intelligence on BOTH sides. Some of the greatest scientists in history AND the present are creationists. For anyone to demean all scientists in a rival theory as stupid is just completely false and irrational and proves that the one who makes the allegations isn't very intelligent or at the least isn't honest. The deck is EXTREMELY stacked against creation scientists because they believe God created things. Society has twisted separation of church and state into banning all things in education and academics that refer to God. This is gross injustice. How would you like it if all things Darwin spoke about were banned from education and academics? Do you have any idea how fast your theory would crumble? Watch the movie "Expelled: No intelligence allowed" for just the tip of the iceberg. Even evolutionists, nobel prize winners, complain that they can get things published in areas that the establishment has set without great difficulty. But if they delve into areas that the establishment doesn't like, even though they use the EXACT same rigor and tests and quality, it's banned. This is NOT just in creation science. My mentor is one of the best English teachers in the world. He is phenomenally effective and the way he teaches is far more effective than even the best textbooks on the market. He has EXTREMELY solid research to back it up..that used the EXACT same methods of other research he did. But, some research he did was acceptable to the establishment and they published it. One major area of his research though was anathema to them and they banned it even though the quality was exactly the same. Please don't insult my intelligence or the facts of history by saying that there is a level playing field. Read up on Noam Chomsky and propaganda. There is tons of facts, data and such that are IRREFUTABLE that establishments don't allow ideas they hate to play on a level playing field. This is absolute fact that is irrefutable. The sad thing is that so many are ignorant of this reality and have false illusions about the objectivity of scientists.
"Creation scientists generally have a hard time publishing because they can't adequately answer the weight of data stacked against their interpretations."
I'm sorry but this is absolute fiction. Absolute and complete. When communism controlled education in China, Russia and North Korea, please tell me how many journal articles were printed on the value of democracy? Since the idea that truths from God can't be part of govt. education controls society now, anyone who thinks there is a level playing field is seriously uninformed. Again, how would you like it if any theory that uses ideas from Darwin were banned no matter what the evidence. Creationists have MOUNTAINS of evidence for their theory. Creationists invented most fields of science...and do extremely solid scientific work. If we expand that to include Bible science, there are many many very critical science concepts in the Bible that have been irrefutably proven (I gave a link above).
People seriously misunderstand separation of church and state. It does not and never did mean that we should ban all truth from religion in education. It meant that the govt. should not be forcing people to believe the religion it prefers. The govt. though should not be preferring one religion over another. So, if I were in charge, this is what I would do. I would teach all students about the philosophy of science and the facts of history regarding establishments and teach them to think critically about it (a SERIOUSLY lacking skill in most people today). I would tell all major religions (including evolution, atheism, Satanism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, even science itself (since even science rests on axioms that are unproveble, etc.), to give the best arguments for their faith. It could range from the observable to the logical. Then they would need to show how their philosophy can benefit students and make their lives better (with real stories, evidence, etc). This would be age approriate and the depth according to level. The explanations should avoid ridicule of others beliefs (since that doesn't even begin to prove them wrong and those who use ridicule other beliefs as stupid demonstrate a lack of honesty and don't prove anything about their own beliefs) and focus on the actual evidence and practical benefits that come from those beliefs. Then students would have freedom to compare them. THIS would REALLY be a a level playing field and students would begin to escape from the prison of establishments of ALL types (including everything from Christianity to atheism) and it would force a lot more rapid growth of knowledge...since all would be informed on the issues and no religion/philosophy could hide it's weak points by banning the others from education completely. It would require people to challenge their first principles and escape from barbarism as Oliver Wendell Holmes so brilliantly put it.
"To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. US jurist
Well, that's QUITE a bit more than I planned to write. Will try to write and respond to other things in a few days if I have time.
Have a great weekend and Sabbath all!
Bryan
Elaine,
"Is there anything that a supernatural explanation cannot answer?" Yes I believe there is plenty. Scientific evidence can disprove all sorts of supernatural explanations. I am not completely irrational - just a bit :). And, I will admit, that I don't 'know' that I am right, but I think I am within my rights to choose to believe it until proven otherwise. Is that completely irrational?
It's a lot like my belief in God as well. My faith is not blind. The claims that I am wrong, I am looking at them. My beliefs have changed on rare occasions.
But it's the evolutionists that claim to have evidence that creation has been falsified.
OK, to one of your examples, it's more like claiming to prove that Sasquatch is not real, rather than proving he is real.
I just think that Christians don't need to reject the possibility of the whole model of creation a priori only based on the fact that it requires an element of the supernatural. A lot of the supposed falsifications require rejecting the possibility of the supernatural - without sufficiently explaining why the supernatural explanation is wrong.
About the many dating methods, here is a file listing 76 of them.
http://www.eslmission.org/docs/esl/76%20ways%20to%20date%20the%20earth.d...
There are at billions of years of difference in some of the results(and there are many more beyond these 76). This author is not infallible and neither are the evolutionists or any scientists. So, there might be some things that could be adjusted or even a couple errors as is true with every scientist on ALL sides side. Some people will try to rebut his argument and then claim the argument has been "debunked", but their criticism can also be rebutted and "debunked". And the worst of it is that they turn around and use the exact same principles that they criticize in creationists work to support evolution…an example of extreme hypocrisy.
Furthermore, last time I checked, the rocks themselves do not shout out to us when they came into existence and neither do they produce videotapes of witnesses who observed them when they formed. As soon as scientists start assigning dates to levels of carbon or potassium or argon or whatever in rocks and fossils, etc, they have left solid sound science and entered the realm of assumption and speculation. Why? Because they have absolutely NOTHING that they know for certain is older than a few thousand years. There’s absolutely nothing to measure against to ensure that the dates assigned really do correlate with something that is really authentically 5 million years old. They also don't take into account all kinds of other natural events that can massively distort the results (this is ESPECIALLY true if volcanoes, earthquakes and such events have occurred).
It’s not hard to assign dates based on one apriori commitments to decay levels and rations in different systems and get superficially similar results. But, if evolutionists are the ones assigning the dates, they will appear uniform because of their apriori commitments to evolution, NOT because the science actually says how old the rocks are. If I got creationists to assign the dates for C14, potassium-argon, etc., I could EASILY get them all to line up in favor of creation.
The main point is this…uniformitarianism can produce all sorts of wildly different results and there is nothing that we KNOW conclusively is more than a few thousand years old to check them again. That means they are untestable in any meaningful way. Since there are so many dates you can choose from, you can just choose whatever dates fits your fancy. But, if you get scientists all with the same apriori commitments to determine the dates associated with decay levels, then it’s not hard to force the data into apparent uniformity supporting WAHLAH…that apriori commitment.
Here's something I wrote on enewatek to demonstrate how BOTH creationists and evolutionsts are picking the data they wish to support their apriori belief:
CORAL REEF DATING
Enewetak coral reef has been drilled through and is about 1,405 meters thick. Evolutionists say that this proves the world is millions of years old. Creationists say it’s only a few thousand years old. But, here is some actual scientific data. This shows how all scientists are tempted to interpret data according to their own worldview. Here are the facts:
FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick (2nd pic is enewetak)
FACT: Observed rates of coral growth range from .5cm (=5mm/year) to 414mm/year with many in the 100-200mm range (faster or slower rates may also exist but haven’t been observed).
1405m = 1,405,000mm
5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age
50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age
100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age
200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age
300mm/year rate =4,683 years estimated coral age
414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age
These are ONLY the observed rates of coral growth. Faster or slower rates may have occurred that haven’t been observed. In 1992, this coral in the picture above was found on a shoe that was less than 4 years old. This shows that coral growth can sometimes be extremely fast.(picture available at the link on dating that I've given several times and it's linked in the file referred to above.)
For Enewatak’s rate of growth, we only have recent observations. Many things can cause drastic changes in the rate of growth and we just do NOT know