I originally wrote this as a response on a Yahoo! Group, but decided it was pretty good stuff, and should be a blog, too.
I can't understand why Creation-versus-Evolution is even a question in this day and age. Darwin's Evolution Science is, by a HUGE margin, the most well-proved theory in the history of civilization. It is the foundation of everything we know about biology. Half of the people reading this would have died before reaching adulthood without modern medicine, and everything we know about medicine rests on the foundation of evolution. Geology, anthropology, sociology, chemistry, astronomy ... even psychology, would all come crumbling down if evolution were proved false.
But it won't be. Darwin's evolution has been proved in so many ways it's hard to count. There has never, in the history of the world, been a science that's been attacked so fiercely, yet withstood the test. Over and over, every fact that's ever been learned, every bone dug up, every new discovery in physics or chemistry, every advance in our understanding of DNA and reproduction, has strengthened, rather than weakened, Darwin's Theory.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong. Why dance around and be polite? Creationism is plainly, and OBVIOUSLY, inconsistent with the world we live in. Darwinism explains it perfectly, in every respect.
The odd thing is that religious people don't challenge other scientific theories that are far less proven. Einstein's theory of relativity? The evidence supporting it is pretty strong, but it's just a shadow of the evidence supporting Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to Einstein? The theory of plate tectonics? Nobody questions it, but it's just a child compared with Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to earthquake predictions that are based on plate tectonics? Even the fact that the planets revolve around the sun is barely better supported than Darwin's Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to that?
The real question is this: If you believe in God, and you believe that God gave you a brain, and intelligence, and free will, don't you think He wanted you to discover the beauty and wonder of His creation? He gave you a brain – use it!
The great thing about science is that, unlike religion, if I tell you something is true, the scientific method obliges me to tell you HOW I reached that conclusion, and you can verify it for yourself. I've done the work – I've read dozens of books on evolution, on biology, zoology, natural history. I've even read Origin of the Species, cover to cover; it's a magnificent work. And you can read it too.
Do your homework. Read Dawkins, Gould, Dennett, Wills and even Darwin himself. They're really good reading. You'll enjoy them. If you want to learn more, take a biology course at your local community college. Then take a physics course, so you'll truly understand things like carbon dating and radioactive isotopes dating, and other scientific dating methods. Then maybe a basic course in geology, and learn the REAL facts about the Earth. And then, AFTER you've done your homework, after you've really studied all this stuff, if you still believe in Creationism, well, then come back and argue.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
26 comments:
Dear readers -- I am no longer blogging and after leaving these blogs open for two years have finally stopped accepting comments due to spammers. Thanks for your interest. If you'd like to write to me, click on the "Contact" link at the top. Thanks! -- CJ.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The real question is this: If you believe in God, and you believe that God gave you a brain, and intelligence, and free will, don't you think He wanted you to discover the beauty and wonder of His creation? He gave you a brain – use it!
ReplyDeleteThis is why I am so baffled with fundamentalists claims that if it contradicts the Bible, then it is not true. The world/universe is such an amazing place full of wonder and beauty. Why water that down simply for a book? It is a shame that many are not unable to grasp the awesomeness that life has to offer because they are stuck in their dogma.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteYet again, this is another very interesting topic, and I think that you’ve placed it in such simple, straightforward terms. You noted, “The odd thing is that religious people don't challenge other scientific theories that are far less proven.” It’s more than likely that the vast majority of believers probably don’t follow science at all, so the few that do, have demonized evolution, yet, I’d venture a guess that it’s scarce understood. Let’s be honest here; it’s takes a fairly ignorant mind to believe the patent absurdity called religion – I do not mean this in the pejorative sense. As the late, great Robert Heinlein once noted in Stranger in a Strange Land: “Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness.”
As I have noted on boards elsewhere, I really don’t care what people believe, for they are entitled to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience. However, the problem lies in that religious people rarely afford others the same luxury. Furthermore, if someone is disposed to believe such palpable myths, then what other sorts of flapdoodle are these religious believers willing to swallow? And, most importantly, what does this mean for our Republic? As Aristotle so aptly put it, “The basis of a democratic state is liberty.” Yet, as we have seen, religious people think it’s their duty to impose the will of God on everyone.
All of that aside, yes, I cannot agree more, and for fear of overstating my case, I dispense with the pleasantries and call a spade a spade; for all intent and purpose, evolution is a fact. If you’ll forgive the idiomatic language; to deny the veracity of evolution is akin to denying the sky is blue. For rational people, it is insufficient to state that “I just know.” The grand difference between this subjective feeling and science is that a scientist can demonstrate for everyone why he or she knows. I fail to understand why this is so difficult to comprehend, but I think America’s religiosity – in an agrarian age was perhaps once a strength – has now become a gigantic albatross; one that threatens to undermine the scientific foundations of our industrialized society. Thanks for allowing me to rant!
Dear Craig,
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right, there is no evidence whatsoever against the perfect Darwinian model of evolution. Then again, what would happen if we found something whose existence couldn't be explained by evolution? Like a very small protein and acid structure with the ability to inject it's genetic material into a cell? I really don't think society could take it, I mean, after all everyone knows that if we ever found such a thing then the only logical step would be to not explore the implications of it and simply act as if it exists separately from all other organic matter, but then we would stop being true scientists because a true scientist doesn't sweep things under the rug just because they go against common belief.
yours truly,
Dmitri Iwanowsk
February 11th, 1892
that's because the theory of relativity can be accepted without renouncing ones religion
ReplyDeleteAre we drawing a distinction here between religious fundamentalists and religious people by and large? Because there are plenty of religious people who have no problem with evolution and who have accepted it without renouncing their faith. The Church of England happily accepted Darwin very early on, and the Catholic Church is happy with it too. Plenty of religious people have worked in the field of Evolution. The only problem area - and it is a BIG problem area - are the religious Right of America and Muslim extremists.
ReplyDeleteI should just add that I don't understand the Creationist vs Evolution conflict either. Its obvious Creationism is wrong. What I am taking issue with are some of the statements made here.
Also, could you explain how 'geology, anthropology, sociology, chemistry, astronomy ... would all come crumbling down if evolution were proved false'? I am particularly baffled as to how astronomy would come crashing down as astronomy predated evolutionary theory by thousands of years. How does Evolution effect our understanding of the planets/ stars/ formation of galaxies etc? The Nebula Theory of the formation of the Solar System, for instance, was developed over a hundred years before Darwin by Emmanuel Swedenborg, so its patently obvious that Astronomy is not dependent upon Evolutionary Theory.
As for Geology, well as we know, Charles Lyell established that the world was older than 6000 years before Darwin, so I don't see how this follows either.
As for Chemistry, the basis of modern Chemistry was founded by Robert Boyle who lived a century or so before Darwin as well.
As for Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology would come crashing down, but that is only one part of Psychology. Seems like a strange set of statements to me, but I would be happy to know more.
Dmitri – I'm not sure what point you're making. You're obviously talking about viruses and probably HIV, which are being studied intensively by scientists, both for medicinal purposes and to discover their origins. That's hardly what I'd call "sweep things under the rug." Quite the contrary. Scientists don't do that - sweeping things under the rug is religion's specialty.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of the HIV virus and sweeping things under the rug, I was alarmed to discover the other day that there is in fact no scientific document proving that the HIV virus caused AIDS. Did you know this? I was shocked.
ReplyDeleteOh and I didn't read this in some crackpot religious website but in an interview with Lyn Margulis in a reputable science magazine. Worth checking for verification.
Amazing article. Simple and to the point. I am sick and tired of arguing with creationists. :(. They hardly listen to the points we mention and they keep insisting that we listen to them. And they also say that we take decisions based on emotions where as they do it using logic. Sick people. We all know that it is the other way around.
ReplyDeleteDarwin's masterpiece is "On the Origin of Species", not "Origin of the Species".
ReplyDeletePart one of three.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, interesting blog. I do have a few questions though, how can you make the statement: "The great thing about science is that, unlike religion, if I tell you something is true, the scientific method obliges me to tell you HOW I reached that conclusion, and you can verify it for yourself," without offering any concrete evidence to back up your claims to evidence of evolution?
"I can't understand why Creation-versus-Evolution is even a question in this day and age. Darwin's Evolution Science is, by a HUGE margin, the most well proved theory in the history of civilization. It is the foundation of everything we know about biology. Half of the people reading this would have died before reaching adulthood without modern medicine, and everything we know about medicine rests on the foundation of evolution. Geology, anthropology, sociology, chemistry, astronomy ... even psychology, would all come crumbling down if evolution were proved false.
But it won't be. Darwin's evolution has been proved in so many ways it's hard to count."
This is a good premise; it interested me enough to continue reading:
"There has never, in the history of the world, been a science that's been attacked so fiercely, yet withstood the test."
Here's my first issue: Plato's conception of an egg shaped world was disputed for 1800 years (Around 300BC to 1522AD), before it was finally proven by Magellan. The Theory of Evolution has only been in existence since 1859, nearly 153 years and should not claim to be the most persecuted.
Over and over, every fact that's ever been learned, every bone dug up, every new discovery in physics or chemistry, every advance in our understanding of DNA and reproduction, has strengthened, rather than weakened, Darwin's Theory."
Physics could theoretically support or tear down the Big Bang Theory, but that's an entirely separate discussion; I'm not sure why you're lumping in with organic evolution.
SOME advances in DNA, those building on the proof of DNA from RNA and RNA from amino acids suggest that evolution is possible, but other advances in genetic research push the rational mind towards an improbability: the length and complexity of a single strand of DNA is six feet long and composed of 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 precisely sequenced amino acids (500,000,000 in human DNA), each with a specific counterpart. The odd of amino acids sequencing themselves into this order, in a perfectly tuned environment, are approximately 1 in 10^600; for practical purposes, impossible. I would also like to mention that even in the highly touted Miller-Urey experiment, cyanide and other chemicals that are toxic to life were created along with a few amino acids that are NOT used in build DNA or RNA.
I'm not sure what discoveries in reproduction you are referring to: molecular or birthing. Neither one supports evolution above intelligent design.
Part two of three.
ReplyDelete"Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong. Why dance around and be polite? Creationism is plainly, and OBVIOUSLY, inconsistent with the world we live in. Darwinism explains it perfectly, in every respect."
This is purely opinion, do not lump it in with fact, and it is also wrong. Creationism is a belief that the world was intelligently created: it is necessarily all encompassing. Since it is based in the existence of a being outside of our three-dimensional world, nothing in our three-dimensional world can prove or disprove the belief in a creator. Saying that creationism is inconsistent with our world is blatantly ignoring the very nature of creationism. Also, there are no scientists who will say conclusively that Darwinism perfectly explains life: just look at a few symbiotic relationships and the REQUIREMENT that both species evolve at an identical speed without overwhelming the other. For instance, the euglossine bee and the neotropical orchids: this specific type of flower is either male or female, and each will behave in a way to reproduce, but only the female can procreate. The male plant has to attract a male bee onto its surface and then cause the bee to collect pollen for the female plant, then the female plant must attract a pollenated male bee and retrieve the pollen. This complex procedure makes Darwinism look a little shabby, and there are dozens of similar relationships, here are a few more: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3929/the-best-examples-symbiosis-nature.
"The odd thing is that religious people don't challenge other scientific theories that are far less proven. Einstein's theory of relativity? The evidence supporting it is pretty strong, but it's just a shadow of the evidence supporting Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to Einstein? The theory of plate tectonics? Nobody questions it, but it's just a child compared with Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to earthquake predictions that are based on plate tectonics? Even the fact that the planets revolve around the sun is barely better supported than Darwin's Evolution Science. Why don't Christians object to that?"
Credit is deserved for good questions here. The main issue is that evolution seeks to explain all biogenesis, including a beginning of abiogenesis. Einstein's theory of relativity is only a principle that can be proven fairly easily, just as Newtonian laws can be easily proven.
I will also point out that you have not provided any evidence behind evolution, but instead offered open-ended statements insisting that it is everywhere.
"The real question is this: If you believe in God, and you believe that God gave you a brain, and intelligence, and free will, don't you think He wanted you to discover the beauty and wonder of His creation? He gave you a brain – use it!"
I completely whole-hearted agree, as do most Creationists. There are very few Creationists who believe that science cannot agree with religion, in-fact there are many Creationists who believe that God created humans with a mind that can think for the purpose of discovering all the things that were created.
Part three of three
ReplyDelete"The great thing about science is that, unlike religion, if I tell you something is true, the scientific method obliges me to tell you HOW I reached that conclusion, and you can verify it for yourself. I've done the work – I've read dozens of books on evolution, on biology, zoology, natural history. I've even read Origin of the Species, cover to cover; it's a magnificent work. And you can read it too."
Once again exactly true, with one exception though. the theory of evolution and abiogenesis requires an environment that cannot exist today, and therefore cannot be verified: it is not scientific for this reason.
"Do your homework. Read Dawkins, Gould, Dennett, Wills and even Darwin himself. They're really good reading. You'll enjoy them. If you want to learn more, take a biology course at your local community college. Then take a physics course, so you'll truly understand things like carbon dating and radioactive isotopes dating, and other scientific dating methods. Then maybe a basic course in geology, and learn the REAL facts about the Earth. And then, AFTER you've done your homework, after you've really studied all this stuff, if you still believe in Creationism, well, then come back and argue."
There is a religious belief under the umbrella of Christianity that explains the discrepancies in carbon dating. Canopy Theorists believe that the earth was covered in a dense cloud, dense enough to prevent ultraviolet rays from entering our atmosphere and creating carbon-14 or degrading DNA in our bodies, but composed in a way that allowed infrared and visible light through. I still need to find a book on it to confirm the precise nature of their beliefs, but that is my understanding of their convictions.
You made an interesting commentary, but failed to provide any scientific data to prove your hypothesis. Please do some research and reply with something concrete: more than conjecture and opinion based on someone else's analysis.
Sorry for being so longwinded, I wanted to hit every topic. I think I still glossed over a few topics to quickly, but I decided this was enough for one reply.
Mr Bergey – Thanks for your thoughtful replies. You are simply mistaken on every point. Although I am tempted to challenge every point you made, it would be a waste of time because there are dozens of excellent books that do so far better than I could. You use a common strategy of throwing a shotgun scatter of unrelated arguments, from abiogenesis to carbon dating to Plato. Each one of these has been refuted carefully and completely, or else you're misrepresenting the facts.
ReplyDeleteHave you read many of Dawkins older books (the ones about evolution, not religion)? Gould? Dennett? Wills? Have you read all of Darwin's books? Do you understand why Plato's egg-shaped-world claim was actually not correct, as you assert? (Hint: it's about why, not whether, the Earth is a certain shape.)
It's not up to me to "provide scientific data" for science that is mainstream. You don't have to dig to find this stuff; it's ordinary high-school and college science. Any interested citizen with an open mind can find hundreds of books on evolution, geology, physics and biology. Many of them (some already mentioned) are aimed at the average person without a college science degree. I hope you'll avail yourself of these resources.
Could the author of this piece not refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". If you dissect the word Darwinism then you'll see it means adherence to the belief system of Charles Darwin. I accept evolution as true. I do not know what Charles Darwin believed on most issues of life not do I care.
ReplyDeleteAnon – normally you'd be right. A word like "Joe-ism" would imply a group of people who believed that Joe had everything figured out and believed everything Joe said. However, in this particular case, "Darwinism" has taken on a specific meaning in the common parlance that is (nearly) synonymous with the Theory of Evolution, and excludes the rest of Darwin's life and beliefs. Nevertheless, your point is a good one.
ReplyDeletepart 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteMr. James, I would invite you to read some of the arguments put forth on this website.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
The quotes are all referenced with books and page numbers at the bottom. I will post one argument with reference so you can see one without reading the whole article if you wish.
Here are a few points I randomly selected.
"Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new 'basic kind.'"
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:
The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
part 2 of 3- sorry, I realized this was taking up more room than I thought, so I need 3 parts.
ReplyDeletea few arguments from the article, not a list of them all.
and lest i forget, all credit for the arguments goes the website I have provided and the sources listed. these were not discovered by me.
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
part 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteEvolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
(at first I wasn't going to put this next part in, but just in case someone doesn't understand the difference between horizontal and vertical evolution.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
(this leads into the first fruit flies argument i had posted....and i was going to leave this out... but it is important to understand this concept).
finally, unrelated to the above arguments, I have a quick question for you. Your final reply to Mr. Bergey at the end of the first paragraph was as follows,
"Each one of these has been refuted carefully and completely, or else you're misrepresenting the facts."
Your statement here is biased. You aren't allowing for the option that any part of Mr. Bergey's arguments could be correct, as your only options for the solution favor the outcome you're hoping to prove, or assume it is all proved. You also act as if these proofs have been verified and are falsifiable, but simply suggest that
"you'll avail yourself of these resources."
I respect your arguments, though I do not agree with them, and I look forward to seeing your replies to any of my referenced arguments.
Anon - You're doing exactly what Mr. Bergey did: offering a shotgun scatter of unrelated assertions. As with Mr. Bergey, your arguments have all been thoroughly and convincingly refuted many times by highly respected scientists and authors.
ReplyDeleteI'll just pick one of your arguments: the "second law" fallacy. Iron Chariots has a complete refutation of your claim.
Statements like "no one has ever seen [evolution] happen" are just plain false, and are typical of creationist apologetics. It sounds great, but it's just wrong. Again ... don't ask me to do research for you when it's all out there for any open-minded to discover. Ever heard of drug-resistant microbes?
As to transitional forms, they're all over the place. We have fossil records galore. Creationists love to look at species A and B and say, "Look, where's the missing link?" Then when scientists discover C that's between them, suddenly there are TWO missing links! The A-C link and the C-B link. With this argument, you could claim there's a missing link between me and my mother ... we're obviously different, so where's the transitional form???
If you do a bit of research (it doesn't take much), you'll find scientific refutations of each one of your arguments.
As to your in the penultimate paragraph that I'm biased ... well, science is always biased towards the verifiable truth.
Mr. James,
ReplyDelete(I only have time to address a few of the issues here).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "offering a shotgun scatter of unrelated assertions." I told you that I would quote a few of the arguments from the article which I gave a link to, and invited you to read the article in its entirety.
If by saying that I gave multiple "unrelated assertions," you mean that I have multiple arguments showing faults in evolutionary theory….. I agree. Am I limited to only 1 argument? Do evolutionists only claim to have 1 fault with creationism? No, they have multiple. So, by your logic, it would be implied that that an evolutionary article with more than 1 attack on creationism has a “scatter of unrelated assertions,” if, indeed, it has multiple arguments. This is flawed logic.
"Ever heard of drug-resistant microbes?"
As a matter of fact, yes. Here are a few articles on drug-resistant microbes, and why that is NOT an example of evolution.
Medicine and antibiotic resistance
Evolutionists are quick to use many unsupportable arguments to promote their beliefs. The most-often-used example is that of antibiotic resistance. They argue (quite vociferously at times) that one must understand that bacteria will evolve to a state of resistance to a particular antibiotic if that antibiotic is overused. Quite overlooked by the evolutionist are the multiple mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, none of which require or involve so-called evolutionary changes, which would add new information into the genome.
For instance, there are examples of antibiotic resistance found in bacteria recovered from the frozen corpses of people who died before the use of antibiotics. Much antibiotic resistance results from natural selection of populations of already-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics kill susceptible organisms, and resistant organisms survive.
Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria's ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations.
Recently, similar arguments have been put forth to explain resistance in certain strains of the influenza virus. These arguments fail for the same reason. This loss of information is inconsistent with a biological model that proposes to explain how organisms become more complex over time. Loss of information is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, and fits well into a creationist model of biology. Thus, antibiotic resistance is not a valid argument for the Darwinian evolutionist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/11/22/evolution-and-medicine
One of the most common evidences used in textbooks to support evolution is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, the marvelous ability of bacteria to survive against antibiotics does not support the idea of progressive evolution at all.
ReplyDeletePublic school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures, like mosquitoes, mushrooms, and men—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.
The textbook authors recognize that the resistance is already present in the bacterial population (Fig. 15.5) and then claim that selection for resistant bacteria in a population is direct evidence for evolution. Selecting for something that is already present does not provide support for the information-gaining change required for evolution. Students are left with a confused understanding of evolution and are expected to equate observed changes in bacteria with the conversion of one kind into another.
THE CHART REFERENCED ABOVE CAN BE FOUND AT THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE BELOW.....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/antibiotic-resistance-evidence
as for the greatly debated 2nd law controversy, here is an article rebutting that. I will just pull one quote from the article. The next post will have 17 other resources providing arguments to the 2nd law controversy.
ReplyDelete"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) 10
And finally, an amazing admission on the part of HARVARD PROFESSOR RICHARD LEWONTIN, a geneticist, (self-proclaimed marxist), and champion of neo darwinism. one of the worlds leaders in promoting evolutionary biology.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll say I'm misunderstanding his quote, but that will be for the next set of posts.... for now.....
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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
You are indeed grossly misinterpreting the quote. In fact, it's rather stunning that you would include this quote when arguing for creationism. 'Nuff said.
ReplyDelete"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
ReplyDeletescience via monkeys to men evolution is trying to prove this route BECAUSE they don't want to admit there is a creator. tha's the point.
you seem to have skipped my 3 posts prior to that one. no comments on anything? not even on the "drug-resistant" microbe?
I skipped your prior three posts because I'm not willing to do your work for you. Every single point you mention has been resoundingly refuted by science. To take the one example you seem to think is a strong point, the evolution of drug resistance in microbes, the article you cite is either incomplete, misleading or just wrong.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Mechanisms
Notice that descriptions of spontaneous mutations of completely new genes are mentioned multiple times in the Wikipedia article, and everything in the article has citations to scientific papers. Microbes DO spontaneously evolve new traits, including drug resistance. This is basic science at this point in history.
You seem to expect me to spend hours researching questions you can easily research yourself. And if I do, you'll reject them anyway. You come to the argument with something no scientist would accept: you bring the conclusion, then look for support for those conclusions. I won't do your work for you. If you want to learn, follow the links I already sent you.
And by the way, you completely misunderstand Lewontin's quote. Lewontin is merely reaffirming that science is the business of discovering reproducible facts. If you let magic in the door, whether it's voodoo or Christianity, science ends.
And nobody is trying to "prove" the monkey-to-man hypothesis. Scientists are way past that. It's an explanation of facts. It's supported by more evidence than any other observation in the history of humanity.