Posts
The evolutionist:
If you want specific replys to some of the issues raised here, we will need to break it up some. But I will try to address the items below. Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations. The only difference is that some of them shy away from saying God when they reference an 'intelligent designer'. Find me one of these 'scientists' who would be comfortable with the the 'intelligent designer' being called Allah, and I will believe you. In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done. As to the two websites. The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. And guess what, two of the three links you sent me lead right back there. The third one was PBS. Which was very useful (I read all three). It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought. Thank you, I hope Peter read it too.
I am confused at your conclusion since this article clearly reinforces my original statement. In fact, it says that speciation can occur in a matter of tens of thousands of years, which thought anyway but didn't want to freak you out with that suggestion. The 1 million years was enough to get you foaming at the mouth. I will get back to you on how fossils are formed. I need to find some good articles on the subject, because my memory of stuff I have read before isn't specific enough to tell you right where to go. Although I think it would be as easy for you to find as me. I am just going to go to some scientific organzation websites and some science journals and see what turns up from a general search.
Imperfect fossil record. Let me get this right, you will only accept evolution when we have a 'perfect' fossil record? That is what you require? Because if you can accept only perfect historical evidence, than we might have all kinds of problems here with the bible. There are many, many transitional forms of fossils. I will find some articles about that too.
Please don't pull up the same Darwin quote that Pete did. That only makes it so obvious that the objections come from the same small self-referencial community. Again, that quote is a rhetorical question that he answers in the book. For confimation, please refer to the same article you just sent me on punctuated evolution.
Me:
Thank you for your response, it was slightly more courteous and I appreciate it. I was almost finished writing my response when I began to read some of your exchanges with the others from this past week. I think I may be repeating some things. Hope you all don't mind. Warning: this one's long:
G. Simpson's phrase "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" is not merely one man's thought, but the very basis for your naturalist materialistic presupposition. I'm in the middle of writing a comment to your "Viewpoints" response to Pete which should help us get down to the root issue.
The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. That's funny, I don't normally use those two websites when I debate. I didn't know about AllaboutGod until I started following this thread. I simply wanted to show you there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. But it's understandable that DI pops up: it's because they're the lead organization of this movement. And if you're still not convinced there are credible scientists who believe in ID, here's an official list (and I doubt all are creationist Christians):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Sorry to use DI's website, but just wanted to show you that there is an actual growing list and there are many more scientists being added as we speak. Even from the Muslim world. Here are a couple of Muslim scientists who believe in Intelligent Design:
Dr. Iqbal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Iqbal - unfortunately, you may see his name on the dissenters list on DI, a site you don't like. But you wanted ID from the Islamic world, so here's one. More will be added soon by the way.
Dr. Torla Hassan http://research.iiu.edu.my/cluster/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27 and I'm sure most of the professors at that Islamic school are ID supporters/creationists. As a default, Muslims are creationists.
Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations.
Now you're simply being obstinate. It seems you're not very careful with what you read. In your stubborness and haste to defend evolution, you get a little sloppy. Once again, you make it obvious you don't see the differences between ID and Creationism. Please read more about these differences. To start you off, I'll give you a website, not related to DI or AllaboutGod, just to be fair to you:
The definitions are to the middle of the page to the right under the title Who's What? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
Let me make this as simple as possible: just because some websites have links to DI and use each other's information, does not make them the same entity. And also, it seems you haven't read into the biography of at least one of those two ID scientists. Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionist who believes there was an intelligent first cause, and that's it. I didn't check to see if he is a Christian or even a creationist, you can help me with that if you want. But I know he is open to the idea that Nous began all things. As far as I can tell, that's not all too Christian, because there's more to God than just the Great Mind. Dr. Sternberg is a fellow with ISCID and a signatory for DI's dissent from random-chance evolution but is not affiliated with creationists and still considers himself an old Earth biological evolutionist. From your statements, you have programmed yourself to believe ID is a cover for creationism or at least that it's a variant called neo-creationism. It may have been started by a Christian, but it is definitely not Christian. Many people are confused about it because there are so many different ways to go about intelligent design. A Hindu can be an ID supporter as easily as a Christian. Or, agnostics like Darwin and Berlinski. And just because a PA court defined ID as a progeny of creationism, doesn't mean it's true. Just shows state courts aren't the most reliable places to define movements of scientific thought. If you can't make sense of it yet, please accept it for now. As we continue to dialogue, I hope it will click for you. Let's continue with more important points.
Constantly varying speciation is true below the order level, that's observable, a reason why most creationists will say microevolution is science-based theory, since Darwin was mostly talking about his observation of change in species. I can't agree on what he couldn't observe or find in the fossil record of a major phylum shift, which was more of a guess on his part. But then again, the term "species" (and sometimes genus and family) isn't even agreed on among evolutionists. I hate using wikipedia, but this sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
And here's another from the American Scientist:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2005/7/attacks-on-taxonomy
Please make sure to carefully read the links I send because you seem to be missing out on certain details which doesn't help your argument. I'm even willing to place the excerpt in this message if that will help. I just wanted you to read it in context.
It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought.
Well, yeah, no kidding it's not going to be drastically different from evolution because punc eq is still evolution! I was pointing out the differences of emphasis from Darwin to today, which you didn't catch. Remember, the link I gave you about punc eq was only a short summary, not the complete explanation. Punc Eq is a change or improvement from Darwin's assertion, "of slow and gradual modification, through variation and natural selection. New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters." It's the assertion "slow gradual change" vs. "rapid burst" that you missed. You may have missed this part: "In many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record has lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete (aka imperfect, Darwin's term). That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small (this sentence is an assumption and a cop out that Darwin made, although he was hoping for more evidence). But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation (emphasis mine), which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind."
And 150 years later, there is still a lack of a fossil record. Unlike most evolutionists, Gould at least questions the theory when it's challenged by the evidence, which is why he and Eldredge presented punc eq. One of the many disadvantages to their theory is that higher percentages of deleterious mutations occur within a smaller population. (For reference please see M. E. Soulé, et al, "No Need to Isolate Genetics," Science, Vol. 282 (1998), p. 1658, who points out the grad/punc difference by saying "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Some of Soule's ideas runs counter to other evolutionists, though, and that's a whole other issue I'm not about to get into.)
More from other scientists: Todd's article "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757
"All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"
From Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 45.
"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."
I'm sorry to disappoint you on the Darwin quote, it was from a chapter in OotS. I must have missed Pete's email on that. I'll give you another one if you'd like:
"If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (emphases mine)
Your comment about his statement being a rhetorical question is not accurate. In OotS, you will see that Darwin was being open about the possibility of a lack of evidence to alter his theory, what a good scientist should do. Of course, Darwin tried his best to reason away this lack in the two or so chapters after, and does something very unscientific: because the evidence doesn't clearly support his theory, he says the evidence must not be correct or is imperfect. He makes the mistake that evolutionists today tend to do - they place theory above observation (or wait indefinitely for the right evidence to come along, which may not. "But evolution must be true" and the circular reasoning goes round and round). As G. Simpson said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science." And that's one of many reasons why I don't believe in evolution - it is not science but a worldview.
Here is an even better quote. I made sure not to look at DI, AllaboutGod and my sources for this one, but from the book itself: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." These days, Darwin, who was an agnostic, could be technically labeled as an ID theorist, and some of them are agnostics and atheists.
And I gave you five links last time, not just three. The two links on fossilization are not connected to those dreaded "two websites." You may look for others if you'd like, but you will most likely find similar results. Don't worry, I don't freak out at suggestions, I merely respond with good reasoning.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done.
I wasn't talking about a link, I was talking about the Journal of Paleontology, which I mentioned in a previous email, but didn't specifically point out which issue. But thank you for being honest about not reading Darwin's book, if that was what you were referring to.
In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
Harty har! Cute phrase. But if you're serious, then you assume too much. I'm a creationist. ID is a different entity. No, the term God will suffice. If you knew the differences, the nuances, and the connotations, you'll understand.
In summary:
1) ID is different from Creationism.
2) There are legitimate and credentialed scientists in all three camps with their own journals.
3) Darwinism is still without good transition forms between phyla.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
August 23, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 3)
The evolutionist:
The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.
Me:
Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:
Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!
And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
I'll include this train of thought in the next email.
The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.
Me:
Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:
Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!
And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
I'll include this train of thought in the next email.
August 15, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)
The evolutionist:
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.
August 14, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble!
This is a continuation of an email debate in the entry "Into the fray." I was in the middle of their conversation when I started to contribute my thoughts and arguments. I'll try my best to include previous emails, but I'm starting at the most recent conversation where the evolutionist was responding to Pete:
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Me:
Hello all!
I guess I have a little time to respond to the most recent exchange. Once again, these are notes I made specifically to Erich's comments:
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Yes, Darwin's theory is still being used today by evolutionist scientists. It is a working theory of those biologists who believe in it and would like to prove it (some researchers) or who are in the taxonomy related areas, not of the entire field of biology. It's in paleontology where evolution is used. For the most part, biologists in the field and in different industries don't deal with how something originated, just how something works at present. Darwin's original theory is now being repudiated among non-creationist scientists. You may have heard of the Intelligent Design movement - they are a growing number of scientists looking deeply into the mechanism of evolution and realizing the dearth in the theory's scientific plausibility. There are many articles showing that the theory has evolved to varying branches. Just look up articles in the Journal of Paleontology; I read those in place of sleeping pills. The most noteworthy is punctuated equilibrium, which is a departure from Darwin's original idea of phyletic gradualism, or slow, gradual change. The reason why this developed is because of a severe lack of transitionary forms in the fossil record. In fact, this development in evolutionary thought of rapid change in animal morphology is merely a step closer to help disprove evolution altogether. And I know there are people who have written reams of articles repudiating the creationist view, starting with Huxley. They simply don't want to accept it mainly because of pride but also of the ramifications if creationism true. They will deny the evidence even if it leads to the creationist or, at least, intelligence model.
Evolution I take on faith as much as I take just about any scientific theory. So if you want to say I have 'faith' in gravity, than yes I have 'faith' in evolution. As to it being "proven", the case is never closed on any scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. So, no, the case is not "proven" for evolution....or for gravity. And yes, information is forever changing and shifting, and damn glad of it. And yes, evolution is a theory to explain the workings of God. But God didn't write the Origin of the Species. So you can call evolution the creation of man, much as gravity is. Gravity existed before Newton identified its workings, mathmatetical underpinnings, and named it, but we have no proof that it existed before Newton, we just assume it.
I have faith that gravity exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation, as I mentioned in a previous email. The theory is law. I have faith that electromagnetism exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation. The theories proposed, mostly by Faraday, is law. I cannot physically see gravity nor electromagnetic forces, but they exist. But I don't have faith in evolution because it is not verifiable. Much like trying to prove the authenticity of historical papers, you have to use circumstantial evidence and deduction. Dating methods can give you an idea of when it was written, but you can only bring it down to a range and it can be unreliable. At least with historical documents, sometimes the writer mentions something that gives a good hint for the date. With evolution, there's more guesswork than science so the evidence does not prove the theory. What both creationists and evolutionists have to do is make an inference on what happened in the past using the scientific method, which includes observation and experimentation of present day processes to achieve consistent results. I know that's a very basic foundation and was mentioned in previous emails, but it bears repeating.
And evolutionary thought goes back to antiquity in ancient Greece, when a philospher proposed the idea that man came from animals. If anything, he could have been easily influenced by some Asian origins myths of animals becoming humans over a period of time, which are just as ubiquitous as origins myths with a creation theme. And if you're familiar with world myths, they are quite different from the Creation account of the Bible.
Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Evolutionary Theory predicts a certain set of evidence should exist. Evolutionary Theory predicts that certain processes should be in evidence today. Evolutionary Theory predicts that a certain set of parameters must exist and have existed in the past. All three of these conditions are met. There is abundant evidence about the abundance, variety, and transitory features organisims that existed in the past, there is abundant evidence of the workings of the processes in todays world, there is abundant evidence that the set of circumstances that are required exist and existed. I don't understand. WHAT KIND OF "PROOF" ARE YOU DEMANDING?
This is certainly far, far more rigourous than what "proof" you are demanding for the existance of the truth of a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, it is clear that the events of the bible can only be explained by 'supernatural intervention'. If that is your idea of "proof", than you are right. Evolution cannot produce proof of 'supernatural intervention'. so it does not meet your standard or your concept of just what the Scientific Method is.
So far, you've not given at least one piece of evidence to support the statements in your first paragraph. You'll need to substantiate it with examples. From my understanding of your dialogue with Pete, I think he means specifics and good evidence.
Let's try this example using your statements and a compressed version of the scientific method. For example, from the creationist model: processes evident today - flora and fauna buried quickly are more likely to be fossilized than those left to decompose in the open, flora and fauna have complex structures from tiny bacteria to large animals; prediction - there are billions of fossilized flora and fauna through compaction in a chaotic mess because of a major catastrophe, flora and fauna with complex structures are in all levels of geological strata.
From the evolution model: processes evident today - after a period of time, death and decay of flora and fauna with some burial amounts to a limited number of fossilized remains, flora and fauna are in its completed or nearly completed form (with the assumption that there were previous less complex versions); prediction - a limited number of fossilized flora and fauna captured in pits or buried accidentally, flora and fauna gradually or punctually increasing in complexity with each successive geological strata as per Lyell and Darwin.
Find - billions of fossilized flora and fauna compacted in a chaotic mess, flora and fauna with complex structures in all levels of geological strata.
Conclusion: the evidence leads to a creation/intelligence model. Yes, this is a simplified version, but this kind of comparison reasoning with the available evidence is growing among open-minded scientists and they are causing quite a maelstrom in the scientific community; it's evolutionary dogmatists versus open-minded evidentialists, scientist vs. scientist - a glorious battle!
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Me:
Hello all!
I guess I have a little time to respond to the most recent exchange. Once again, these are notes I made specifically to Erich's comments:
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Yes, Darwin's theory is still being used today by evolutionist scientists. It is a working theory of those biologists who believe in it and would like to prove it (some researchers) or who are in the taxonomy related areas, not of the entire field of biology. It's in paleontology where evolution is used. For the most part, biologists in the field and in different industries don't deal with how something originated, just how something works at present. Darwin's original theory is now being repudiated among non-creationist scientists. You may have heard of the Intelligent Design movement - they are a growing number of scientists looking deeply into the mechanism of evolution and realizing the dearth in the theory's scientific plausibility. There are many articles showing that the theory has evolved to varying branches. Just look up articles in the Journal of Paleontology; I read those in place of sleeping pills. The most noteworthy is punctuated equilibrium, which is a departure from Darwin's original idea of phyletic gradualism, or slow, gradual change. The reason why this developed is because of a severe lack of transitionary forms in the fossil record. In fact, this development in evolutionary thought of rapid change in animal morphology is merely a step closer to help disprove evolution altogether. And I know there are people who have written reams of articles repudiating the creationist view, starting with Huxley. They simply don't want to accept it mainly because of pride but also of the ramifications if creationism true. They will deny the evidence even if it leads to the creationist or, at least, intelligence model.
Evolution I take on faith as much as I take just about any scientific theory. So if you want to say I have 'faith' in gravity, than yes I have 'faith' in evolution. As to it being "proven", the case is never closed on any scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. So, no, the case is not "proven" for evolution....or for gravity. And yes, information is forever changing and shifting, and damn glad of it. And yes, evolution is a theory to explain the workings of God. But God didn't write the Origin of the Species. So you can call evolution the creation of man, much as gravity is. Gravity existed before Newton identified its workings, mathmatetical underpinnings, and named it, but we have no proof that it existed before Newton, we just assume it.
I have faith that gravity exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation, as I mentioned in a previous email. The theory is law. I have faith that electromagnetism exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation. The theories proposed, mostly by Faraday, is law. I cannot physically see gravity nor electromagnetic forces, but they exist. But I don't have faith in evolution because it is not verifiable. Much like trying to prove the authenticity of historical papers, you have to use circumstantial evidence and deduction. Dating methods can give you an idea of when it was written, but you can only bring it down to a range and it can be unreliable. At least with historical documents, sometimes the writer mentions something that gives a good hint for the date. With evolution, there's more guesswork than science so the evidence does not prove the theory. What both creationists and evolutionists have to do is make an inference on what happened in the past using the scientific method, which includes observation and experimentation of present day processes to achieve consistent results. I know that's a very basic foundation and was mentioned in previous emails, but it bears repeating.
And evolutionary thought goes back to antiquity in ancient Greece, when a philospher proposed the idea that man came from animals. If anything, he could have been easily influenced by some Asian origins myths of animals becoming humans over a period of time, which are just as ubiquitous as origins myths with a creation theme. And if you're familiar with world myths, they are quite different from the Creation account of the Bible.
Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Evolutionary Theory predicts a certain set of evidence should exist. Evolutionary Theory predicts that certain processes should be in evidence today. Evolutionary Theory predicts that a certain set of parameters must exist and have existed in the past. All three of these conditions are met. There is abundant evidence about the abundance, variety, and transitory features organisims that existed in the past, there is abundant evidence of the workings of the processes in todays world, there is abundant evidence that the set of circumstances that are required exist and existed. I don't understand. WHAT KIND OF "PROOF" ARE YOU DEMANDING?
This is certainly far, far more rigourous than what "proof" you are demanding for the existance of the truth of a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, it is clear that the events of the bible can only be explained by 'supernatural intervention'. If that is your idea of "proof", than you are right. Evolution cannot produce proof of 'supernatural intervention'. so it does not meet your standard or your concept of just what the Scientific Method is.
So far, you've not given at least one piece of evidence to support the statements in your first paragraph. You'll need to substantiate it with examples. From my understanding of your dialogue with Pete, I think he means specifics and good evidence.
Let's try this example using your statements and a compressed version of the scientific method. For example, from the creationist model: processes evident today - flora and fauna buried quickly are more likely to be fossilized than those left to decompose in the open, flora and fauna have complex structures from tiny bacteria to large animals; prediction - there are billions of fossilized flora and fauna through compaction in a chaotic mess because of a major catastrophe, flora and fauna with complex structures are in all levels of geological strata.
From the evolution model: processes evident today - after a period of time, death and decay of flora and fauna with some burial amounts to a limited number of fossilized remains, flora and fauna are in its completed or nearly completed form (with the assumption that there were previous less complex versions); prediction - a limited number of fossilized flora and fauna captured in pits or buried accidentally, flora and fauna gradually or punctually increasing in complexity with each successive geological strata as per Lyell and Darwin.
Find - billions of fossilized flora and fauna compacted in a chaotic mess, flora and fauna with complex structures in all levels of geological strata.
Conclusion: the evidence leads to a creation/intelligence model. Yes, this is a simplified version, but this kind of comparison reasoning with the available evidence is growing among open-minded scientists and they are causing quite a maelstrom in the scientific community; it's evolutionary dogmatists versus open-minded evidentialists, scientist vs. scientist - a glorious battle!
August 08, 2008
Into the fray
Haven't been in a debate in a long time! My friend Jay games with a few people who are evolutionists. For the past month, his gaming friend Pete, a fellow creationist, has been doing well keeping up a good dialogue with the evolutionists. After following their discussions for a couple of weeks, I asked both Jay and Pete if I could contribute. When they said it was ok, I jumped in! It's exciting! It's the same feeling I get when I spar. I just love a good fight! Haven't sparred in a few months, so might as well go at it on an intellectual level. Of course, like sparring, this debate has a purpose - to bring my opponent to the truth. (Regular font is my response, italics is the evolutionist.)
Hello gentlemen!
I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:
I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.
I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.
Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.
Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.
I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".
When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.
And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.
There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?
As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.
When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.
This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.
I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.
I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.
First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.
Hello gentlemen!
I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:
I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.
I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.
Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.
Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.
I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".
When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.
And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.
There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?
As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.
When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.
This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.
I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.
I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.
First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.
March 31, 2008
Renaming channels
I now call the Discovery channel "The Discredit the Bible channel." There were so many shows in just the past few weeks that questioned the legitimacy of the Biblical record and only explained the Bible through the naturalistic perspective. It's bad enough they have shows that present Darwinian evolution as a given "scientific" basis which all other sciences spring from. Worse when they present the Bible's events through that perspective. Darwinian evolution is incredibly limiting and scientifically nonsensical when used to explain the present physical world.
Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."
Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."
November 20, 2007
Behind
The evening news occasionally reports medical break-throughs. They advertise these stories as if they had the edge on what's going on in the medical community. When I was growing up, my mom, who's a nurse, would always say how far behind the media was in reporting these break-throughs. I usually rolled my eyes; sometimes I believed her, sometimes I didn't.
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
November 18, 2007
Useless organs?
I wanted to review the human muscular system and looked into the book Anatomy and Physiology, which my wife borrowed from a friend. When I opened the book, the first chapter had a section devoted to evolution. I thought evolution was dumb before, but after the Creation Seminar this past week, it was laughable to see the "evidence" for evolution. There was a little factoid box on page 11 that talked about vestigial organs,[1] organs that have lost function or just have limited function because of an evolutionary development in the human body. First of all, "the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999."[2] This Anatomy and Physiology book was the second edition from 2001. The editors were either clueless about the recent finds in medicine about those organs, or they were in denial. I noticed that the list of vestigial organs was limited to human body hair and the muscles for ear movement. Neither are vestigial either, just part of the bigger system of the human body. Just because evolutionists don't know its purpose or how it developed, does not mean it has no function or that it is simply a vestige of a previously functioning organ. Right now, I'll get rid of doubts about the most cited "vestigial" organ - the appendix:
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
January 25, 2007
The main difference between Creation and Evolution
We had our capstone lesson on Creationism by having each person answer questions posed to them using this list of facts. I wanted it to be more like I was playing the evolutionist and they had to respond, but it ended up being more like an open book verbal test.
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
Creationism
In defense.
"Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays scrabble." - Philip Gold
In the debate between Creation and Evolution, it all boils down to two avenues:
Creation relies on an intelligent agent as its foundation.
This implies that everything came from an infinite source, that intelligence produces fine-tuning, and that information comes from an informer.
Evolution relies on random chance processes.
This implies that everything came from nothing, that randomness produces fine-tuning, and that chaos produces organized information.
One fact point of each area to show evidence of Intelligence, from largest to smallest and from past to the future:
The Galaxy - Our solar system is just at the right spot in the galaxy to have habitable life, between two major "arms" of stars and far enough away from the center with a great abundance of stars, not suitable for life. Any other place would cause tremendous shifts in radiation, gravity, rotation, etc. No other place in the galaxy is habitable because of these factors. We are perfectly placed to be able to see the galaxy and discover quite a lot of it from the safety of Earth.
The Solar System - The sun is a rare star and is just at the right distance. Most stars are red dwarfs. The gas planets are perfectly positioned for protection and all the planets have safely positioned orbits. The biggest clock in existence is the precise balance between the sun, moon, and Earth.
The Earth - Gravity on Earth is just right because if it is too strong, poisonous gases would be pulled closer to the ground, and if it is too weak, most of the oxygen would be released into space. This planet is perfectly designed so that we can discover it. There is just the right amount of all necessary components for life.
The Environment - The distance and tilt of the Earth gives just the right moderate temperature range and it is not as drastic. The amount of water keeps everything balanced. The flow of the molten lava, the ocean currents, and the air currents helps to create an environment well suited for life.
The Human Body - So complex and reasonable in its structure, it is more finely-tuned than the machines we create. Everything, all the different systems, are coordinated with accurate precision.
The DNA - Evolutionists cannot account for its origin and its massive complexity on such a microscopic level. Francis Crick, who didn't believe in God, ironically paved the way for the beginning of scientific thought acknowledging Intelligent Design. If the molecules of DNA were left to combine by themselves, it would turn into a crystalline structure and not life. All the information stored in the DNA betrays an intelligence.
The Molecule - If random, not one molecule would have combined with others to form the way they did. It would take a lot of intelligence to bring atoms together to create simple structures like amino acids that do not even form by itself outside of a biological system. The Miller-Urey experiment, which tried to create life in a test-tube that would've resembled life on an evolution based early Earth, did not demonstrate life coming from random processes. It only showed that life could not have come together without an intelligence intervening in the process (the lab technician who put it together).
The Atom - Unbelievable amount of power in each atom. There is no way the structure of the atom could have been put together randomly. Its very existence owes itself to a power much greater than the power that holds it together.
The Past - Everything in existence came from something! This "something" has an infinite amount of power and intelligence, is outside of our understanding and outside of time, is personal because of the volitional decision to create in the first place.
Evolutionists say that Creationists merely attribute the things they do not know to God, as in, "Since we don't know how the universe came to be, God must have done it." This thinking is called "God of the gaps". But evolutionists have it wrong! We DO know that God created everything and that as we keep discovering more and more scientific evidence, it will only further prove that this universe could only have been MADE. Evolutionists are the ones who have the "evolution of the gaps" thinking, as in, "We haven't found all the evidence, but we know that evolution did it", which is nothing more than circular reasoning. They believe that evolution did it, even without the evidence. That is called "faith" to some people, a wishful thinking, a belief similar to believing in the tooth fairy, which is not Biblical faith. Darwin believed that his case can be disproven if there are no transitional forms. Since the 1850s, when Darwin came out with the Origin of the Species, there hasn't been ANY evidence of transitional forms!
January 11, 2007
What we've learned so far
In youth group, we discussed some of the notes I wrote down from the DVDs we watched these last few months. These were not all the notes I took and I didn't even get to finish, there is just so much information.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
From the DVD, A Creation Seminar, we learned that...
Many beliefs are accepted, but there is an undercurrent of bias against Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The Four Great Questions:
1) Who am I? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Why am I here? 4) Where am I going when I die?
The answers are directly related to a person's worldview.
The idea that non-life becomes life is merely belief - anyone can believe that, but it's not true.
Where do we get right or wrong if evolution is true?
Humanist - you are your own god, you have no one to be accountable to.
Creationist - God is the Master Creator and you have only Him to be accountable to.
Satan is the master liar, and he will do his best to lie and let people believe they are their own god.
The devil knows that if Genesis crumbles, Christianity crumbles.
You can take a lie and repeat it for 20 years and it can be accepted as true.
Advertisements shape our buying habits. Evolution is marketed as fact when it is not and yet many people bought it.
Evolution is found in things from kids books to science journals to movies and all touted as true science.
Evolutionists mainly believe their "facts" but these do not fit the evidence.
Evolutionists have a belief system, not a science.
Creation vs. evolution is not religion vs. science but religion/science vs. religion/science.
Science is observable, testable, demonstratable.
God could not use evolution because the mechanism for evolution is based on unintelligent, random chance.
Creation and evolution go in opposite directions. Creation says we were in a perfect state and when sin entered, everything fell apart and continues to do so. Evolution says we were simple organisms and information kept being added on by random chance until we've reached our point and maybe even become as gods.
1st Law of Thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed (evolution says "nothing" produced "something")
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - entropy, anything in the state of high order will break down (evolution adds information)
Evolution is not just bad science it is NOT science, but a belief system ornamented with scientific jargon.
From the DVD, Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, we learned that...
Many scientists today doubt the validity of Darwin's theory.
Dr. Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, which means that everything in life, no matter how small has an arrangement of different parts that need to work together to function. If one of those parts is missing, it does not function.
A mousetrap is a good example, you need all the parts to catch a mouse.
Simple-celled organisms, like bacteria, are more complex than previously imagined.
The tiny flagellum, which is the bacterium's "paddle", is not too different from an outboard motor. It has a rod with a driveshaft, several cylinders, and a propeller, all ion-driven. It is a biological machine, not just a glob of protein.
Co-option is the evolutionists way to try to get around it, but it is not possible to have any specific part develop on its own.
Simple cells are made up of proteins and these molecular structures confuse evolutionary scientists because they need to be arranged in a very specific way.
November 11, 2005
Unintelligent
It is incorrect to say that intelligent design is the same as Biblical creationism. Before I begin, there are three terms that need to be defined:
Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.
Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.
Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.
So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.
Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.
The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.
It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.
I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."
Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.
It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.
Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.
Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.
Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.
So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.
Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.
The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.
It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.
I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."
Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.
It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.
July 25, 2005
Intelligent design or something else?
An article by a Rabbi Gerard spoke against intelligent design (ID) claiming it is based on false assumptions. He discussed a lot of basic arguments opposing ID, but doesn't go in-depth. The article is more of a thought provoker than a thesis. Even then, I'd like to counter the arguments he presented. He began the article by asking the supporters of ID to explain mildew, mosquitoes, lower back problems, cancer, and childhood leukemia. I sat there thinking, What about them? To me they're minor issues. Yes, I'm aware that minor issues tend to be a stumbling block to people. "I just get stuck at childhood leukemia," he writes. Really they don't want to submit to the idea of being accountable to God and would use any excuse to not understand, even simple things. He doesn't want to understand because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of God and the Bible.
The essence of his article, and a question many people ask is, if this God who designed the universe is a good God, why does he let these bad things happen? So his article is not so much ID, but "the seeming irreconcilability of a good God and the world all around." It's the reason he can't get around those five "bad" things he mentioned. Why he's a rabbi and doesn't have a basic understanding of the Bible, I wouldn't know. His rabbinical school must've left a few things out. Or he slept through Torah class and missed a few good points about life and God. He tells a story about a conversation between Tanna, one of the earliest rabbis, and a person who asked why fruit rots. Tanna's answer: "so that produce merchants cannot hold on to their merchandise indefinitely, selfishly driving up the price." Much like Bryan's answer to Darrow's question "Where did Cain's wife come from?" Bryan: "Why are you asking about another man's wife?" Cute and curt, but it doesn't answer the question and it is a bad example for creationists and ID supporters. (For that Bryan could've at least said that Adam and Eve had more children other than Abel and Seth. And if he knew any genetics, he could've at least said that the gene pool was still clean and free of mutative effects.)
Gerard goes on to say "scientists claim the problem with ID is that it's not subject to testing; it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion. But this is an unsatisfying conclusion because it leaves us with the possibility that it might be true. And it can't be." All I have to say to that is, the claims of evolution also leads scientists to the same conclusion, that "it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion." Evolution is nothing more than modern man's origins myth, a religion of the self with science terms ornamenting it. Gerard's statement is an extension of his problem - he can't figure out the answer to the good God question so everything else can't be true. He compares Darwinian evolution (DE) and ID saying that if DE is accurate then some things will look intelligently designed while others not and if ID true then all things will look intelligently designed "and very clearly it is not." I know a provoker opinion article isn't the place to state scientific findings, but he should have at least presented one. Those five he mentioned aren't good enough, and, fortunately, not much of a challenge. I'll take on one of them (I won't be too detailed, just want to give an idea):
One problem he mentioned is lower back pain. Evolutionists believe that humans have lower back pain because we were originally hunched over quadrupedally before our ancestors decided to stand bipedally. But we still naturally want to hunch over, much like one of the middle pictures in the debunked “evolution of man” chart. Evolutionists believe that the spine was a suspension bridge rather than a tent pole and only over time did we start to develop a stronger lumbar region. I’m sorry, but our lumbar region has no clear sign that it ever acted like a suspension bridge. It was like that from the very beginning because it was created to be that way. Many years ago, because evolutionists believed the lumbar lie, they developed a method to treat lower back pain, but with negative results. They were confounded when they realized that the treatment needs to be based on the simple fact of keeping the lumbar erect with good anatomically correct exercises instead of treating it like an evolutionary anomaly (ie they suggested to bend forward like an animal). Lower back pain is usually the result of poor body mechanics, a sedentary lifestyle, and obesity, not because of an evolutionary change. People in Third World countries have dramatically less instances of lower back pain than in Industrial nations. They actually move around and do manual labor instead of sitting in front of a computer all day in an office, hunched over like a Neanderthal.
To get back to the important issue, Gerard simply doesn’t understand God. He doesn’t have good Theology proper. Rabbi Gerard, the reason why the world is messed up is because the first humans rebelled against their Creator God. (This account is in the Torah if you want to read about it. And no, it’s not a metaphor.) God made everything good, but because man sinned, everything was shot to pieces. Death, disease, destruction (and lower back pain) entered the world because man disobeyed. He didn’t want to choose God. He instead chose to elevate himself and sinned and everything in creation was negatively affected. Once you get that from the Torah, realize that there’s more scientific evidence out there supporting what you studied in rabbinical school than there is on the defunct ideas of evolutionists, which amounts to nothing more than science fiction.
The essence of his article, and a question many people ask is, if this God who designed the universe is a good God, why does he let these bad things happen? So his article is not so much ID, but "the seeming irreconcilability of a good God and the world all around." It's the reason he can't get around those five "bad" things he mentioned. Why he's a rabbi and doesn't have a basic understanding of the Bible, I wouldn't know. His rabbinical school must've left a few things out. Or he slept through Torah class and missed a few good points about life and God. He tells a story about a conversation between Tanna, one of the earliest rabbis, and a person who asked why fruit rots. Tanna's answer: "so that produce merchants cannot hold on to their merchandise indefinitely, selfishly driving up the price." Much like Bryan's answer to Darrow's question "Where did Cain's wife come from?" Bryan: "Why are you asking about another man's wife?" Cute and curt, but it doesn't answer the question and it is a bad example for creationists and ID supporters. (For that Bryan could've at least said that Adam and Eve had more children other than Abel and Seth. And if he knew any genetics, he could've at least said that the gene pool was still clean and free of mutative effects.)
Gerard goes on to say "scientists claim the problem with ID is that it's not subject to testing; it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion. But this is an unsatisfying conclusion because it leaves us with the possibility that it might be true. And it can't be." All I have to say to that is, the claims of evolution also leads scientists to the same conclusion, that "it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion." Evolution is nothing more than modern man's origins myth, a religion of the self with science terms ornamenting it. Gerard's statement is an extension of his problem - he can't figure out the answer to the good God question so everything else can't be true. He compares Darwinian evolution (DE) and ID saying that if DE is accurate then some things will look intelligently designed while others not and if ID true then all things will look intelligently designed "and very clearly it is not." I know a provoker opinion article isn't the place to state scientific findings, but he should have at least presented one. Those five he mentioned aren't good enough, and, fortunately, not much of a challenge. I'll take on one of them (I won't be too detailed, just want to give an idea):
One problem he mentioned is lower back pain. Evolutionists believe that humans have lower back pain because we were originally hunched over quadrupedally before our ancestors decided to stand bipedally. But we still naturally want to hunch over, much like one of the middle pictures in the debunked “evolution of man” chart. Evolutionists believe that the spine was a suspension bridge rather than a tent pole and only over time did we start to develop a stronger lumbar region. I’m sorry, but our lumbar region has no clear sign that it ever acted like a suspension bridge. It was like that from the very beginning because it was created to be that way. Many years ago, because evolutionists believed the lumbar lie, they developed a method to treat lower back pain, but with negative results. They were confounded when they realized that the treatment needs to be based on the simple fact of keeping the lumbar erect with good anatomically correct exercises instead of treating it like an evolutionary anomaly (ie they suggested to bend forward like an animal). Lower back pain is usually the result of poor body mechanics, a sedentary lifestyle, and obesity, not because of an evolutionary change. People in Third World countries have dramatically less instances of lower back pain than in Industrial nations. They actually move around and do manual labor instead of sitting in front of a computer all day in an office, hunched over like a Neanderthal.
To get back to the important issue, Gerard simply doesn’t understand God. He doesn’t have good Theology proper. Rabbi Gerard, the reason why the world is messed up is because the first humans rebelled against their Creator God. (This account is in the Torah if you want to read about it. And no, it’s not a metaphor.) God made everything good, but because man sinned, everything was shot to pieces. Death, disease, destruction (and lower back pain) entered the world because man disobeyed. He didn’t want to choose God. He instead chose to elevate himself and sinned and everything in creation was negatively affected. Once you get that from the Torah, realize that there’s more scientific evidence out there supporting what you studied in rabbinical school than there is on the defunct ideas of evolutionists, which amounts to nothing more than science fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)