Many scientists and researchers call Texas home, working at the Johnson Space Center, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas, University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Christian University, Southern Methodist University, Baylor University, Rice University, the University of Houston, Texas Tech, the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center . . . well, you get the idea.
These are people who work in science every day. Many of them dedicate their lives to research in biological sciences, where evolution theory is the foundation and framework that hold all the biological sciences together.
Will the Texas State Board of Education members listen to wise, professional advice?
The report highlights five key findings from the survey:
1. Texas scientists (97.7 percent) overwhelmingly reject “intelligent design” as valid science.
2. Texas science faculty (95 percent) want only evolution taught in science classrooms.
3. Scientists reject teaching the so-called “weaknesses” of evolution, with 94 percent saying that those arguments are not valid scientific objections to evolution.
4. Science faculty believe that emphasizing “weaknesses” of evolution would substantially harm students’ college readiness (79.6 percent) and ability to compete for 21st-century jobs (72 percent).
5. Scientists (91 percent) strongly believe that support for evolution is compatible with religious faith.
The survey results show that politicians who argue that there is a scientific controversy over evolution are not supported by scientists even in a state as conservative as Texas, [TFN President Kathy] Miller said.
Texas scientists report that their students from Texas too often are unprepared for college science curricula in biology because evolution wasn’t taught to them. This increases costs at the college level where remedial work must be done, and it discourages many capable students from pursuing careers in science. The report urges SBOE to listen to Texas scientists:
It is no exaggeration to say that Texas colleges and universities have a world-class science faculty and boast some of the most respected science educators found anywhere. These scientists should be an invaluable resource in crafting curriculum standards that prepare Texas schoolchildren for college and for the jobs of tomorrow. But is anyone listening? The State Board of Education would do well to heed the advice from these professors. The science education of a generation of students hangs in the balance. [page 9]
Hearings on proposed changes to the science curriculum are scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, in Austin. Steve Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science, will live blog the hearings for his Houston Chronicle blog, Evosphere.
Resources:
- Press release on the report from the Texas Freedom Network
- Pharyngula’s post on the report, with a lot more comments than we’ll get here
- “Texas biology professors see little controversial about evolution …,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram
- “Majority say teach evolution in Texas,” Associated Press in The Dallas Morning News
- “Most Texas profs support no limits on evolution teaching; 98% in survey against politics in education,” The Houston Chronicle
- Draft #2 of proposed changes to the Texas public school science curricula
- Live streaming audio feed of Texas SBOE meetings (for Wednesday, if you can’t make the hearing)
- Texas Citizens for Science position on Texas’s proposed science curricula standards changes
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Josh,
Evolution would only be true if it had a premise, which it does not even seek to address (because it cannot). There is no beginning in evolution. Only a “bang” which was caused by who knows what and from matter that no one can know where it came from. Also, there is no beginning of life in evolution – simply reproduction and mutation. But the theories involving the beginning of life run in direct opposition to the laws of nature. Therefore, it is not just “it looks designed argument” it is a “it is organic and life only can come from life – substance from substance, etc.
These aren’t theories – these are scientific facts that evolution cannot overcome in a naturalistic manner. Therefore, in my estimation, the whole house of cards tumbles down.
Are there problems in ID? Probably more questions to answer if you say yes to ID than DE (Darwinian Evolution). But more complex and more difficult answers are sometimes true (though trying to argue that life came from non-life seems pretty difficult as well!).
LikeLike
I was trying to make the case that even if there is a bunch of good hard evidence supporting ID (and there isn’t) it would still be blown away by the scope of a very very plausible explanation given concerning a whole lot more evidence given by evolution.
LikeLike
What I meant to get by with that statement and the analysis afterward was that the amount of evidence is overwhelming if one is to interpret it that way. People who believe in ID seem to require relatively little evidence to support their theory because they are usually already 100% convinced of its correctness. So even a few scraps of data that maybe allow for the possibility of ID existence is evidence enough for many people who believe in ID.
LikeLike
Josh said:
That’s so only if we accept “Gee, I dunno, it sorta looks designed to me” as valid research, and as a mountain of evidence all by itself.
Otherwise, that statement is completely in error. There is only one small whit of evidence supporting ID, and that is the Potter Stewart logical fallacy: “It sorta looks designed to me.”
LikeLike
Now that I look back at my post, I have to apologize for its rambling qualities. It’s very early in the morning here…
LikeLike
Hi all,
I apologize in advance for the awkwardness of my post (in timing and structure), but I feel I need to interject some of my feelings in regards to evolution, ID, origin of life, etc.
And as I’m beginning to formulate my response to why I believe ID is incorrect (and accordingly, why the idea of evolution and specifically, a more ‘scientifically sound’ rationale concerning the origins of the universe is correct) I realize that to make a complete case for such a universe, I would have to start from the beginning and make my way through tremendously long chain of events that bring us to the current time. And in order to make the argument a ‘sound’ argument, I would have to utilize all that we have of science. Because science, or more specifically, human reasoning is the only set of ideas/constructs/concepts that we (as human beings) have to go by.
Obviously, I don’t have time to go through everything (and I’m clearly not perfectly versed in the entirety of human knowledge). But I think it is important to note that that is what an argument has to go through to be as ‘sound’ as possible.
So let me state more of what I believe is obvious:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution theory. This is not merely my opinion. The majority of the scientific community – that is, people who are trying to reason why phenomena act they way they do and accordingly model those actions (all using ‘ideally’ reasonable methods of observing and recording) – believe in the rational of this theory given the evidence at hand.
I also believe it is important to note that the reach of the term ‘scientific community’ extends to all people who follow the guidelines of what I stated in the previous paragraph. Any human being has the potential to be a ‘member’ of this ‘community’.
Back to the general statement:
There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the ID theory. But the difference between the evidence of ID and evolution is that evolution can account for a much greater amount of our universe’s currently observed phenomena. If I am to believe ID, then a potential theory for the existence of varieties of organisms not explicitely stated in ID is that they are implicit. Or maybe that the way we define ‘variety’ is what is actually the deformation of the organisms explicitely stated in ID.
Taking a few steps back, I realize that an innumerable amount of theories can be formulated to explain a phenomenon. But it is always the case that the theories that can explain a phenomenon and can also relate it back to the most of other phenomena are the ones that are usually more ‘correct’ (withstanding the test of time).
Now I’m going to try to be more philosophical (sort of):
If there are theories which exist in humanity that can explain the origins of life, the formation of the collection of organisms that live on earth (and their subsequent behaviors), etc. more interrelatedly (and using more evidence) than humanity’s theories specifically regarding ID, then why would anyone rationally believe in ID? The answer (for me) is that nobody would. Unless, of course, my premise is incorrect. That the evidence collected in favor of evolution theory, etc. or ID theory was inappropriately collected and interpreted.
So where does that leave us? How are we to trust that humanity has collected and interpreted data ‘appropriately’? Well, the only thing I can think of is that people generally don’t like to be deceived, and that ‘truth’, in even its most subjective sense, is what the majority of humanity desires to obtain – and is in the best interest of humanity to be expressed as clearly as possible if were are to ‘advance’ in the grand scheme of things (whatever that means).
On a more personal note:
I would really like to know what I’m missing out on by not believing in ID (and whatever implications come along with it). For if I’m to live the most fulfilling life possible, I would definitely want to be doing a much as I can to the best of my abilities.
Again, I’m sorry for the potential incoherence in my arguments and that I may be interrupting an already long-running debate, but I feel I need to know why I’m incorrect in my assupmtions/arguments/etc. I don’t believe that I would be a responsible ‘student of life’ if I were to let something unquestioned as fundamental as the debate of how everything came to be and what/why everything is the what it is now.
LikeLike
Man,
It’s been a month since I replied! I’m so sorry guys! It’s not that I didn’t want to, but time is always a huge factor with me. I must be the worst person in the world to debate with, because it takes forever to get a response. Forgive me.
Ok, to pick up where we left off…
James said,
“The only problem is that all the evidence I will find is either in humans themselves or created by humans at some point in time;”
I would not call nature and natural law human evidence. The necessity of God’s existence is clearly demonstrated by nature, not by man’s logical reasoning. If God exists, He exists independently of man’s logic or reasoning and it can be demonstrated in natural laws and design.
Your statement about the evidence for evolution was also created by humans at some point. I would say that the source of the evidence is in nature itself, not in human reasoning.
You said, “The issue here is whether or not to teach our children the “possibilities of intelligent design.” If we did this, the door would be open for teaching them ALL of the “possibilities” and in the long run I do not think this would be a productive use of our time.”
I agree with you that only plausible theories should be brought forth. I had many professors who would take a argument (mostly theological arguments), present several of the major arguments surrounding them, and then show the strengths and weaknesses of each. At the end, he presented what he thought was the best theory and why and left it up to the students to use their brains. I loved this approach because it demonstrated that he wasn’t afraid of other “possibilities” and I wish more institutions would adopt this approach. If there is no intelligent designer, why not dismantle every IDist’s arguments piece by piece so it can be taken out of the “popular beliefs“ category. The reason I believe ID cannot be taught in school is because IDists have a good point in cause and effect and biogenesis that evolutionists cannot answer.
You said, “This [believing Mohammed existed] may be a flawed analogy. As a Christian, you acknowledge Mohammed to be none other than perhaps an extraordinary human being. Acknowledging the existence of a human being is not the same as acknowledging the existence of a supernatural entity.
Belief in a person’s existence is different than worshipping the person. “What” I believe about Mohammed is different than a Muslim, but I still believe that He is a factual person because of the data. Natural or supernatural, if the data acknowledges the need for God, acknowledging His existence is necessary for intellectual honesty. It doesn’t mean you have to worship Him, just acknowledge His existence. The problem is that so many atheists do not desire to acknowledge His existence is because they know that if He does exist, they SHOULD worship Him, and that’s the real rub.
You said, “Thank you, and may I apologize on behalf of all scientists who do not show respect for your Constitutional rights.”
Thank you James, that was very kind of you. Attempting to shut down another person’s argument by means of force demonstrates a weakness in one’s position and is a sign of insecurity, no matter who it is. Positions should rise and fall on their own merits, not by means of force. You have shown intellectual honesty, which I appreciate.
You said, “Very true; however, because no evidence can be obtained one way or the other on this issue, it shows that God’s existence can only ever remain a possibility and nothing more.”
I’m not sure how you can say that considering you admit that God’s existence is practically mandated by cause and effect. Even if there is no evidence for my parents ever existing, they still exist because I exist. The same would be true for an intelligent designer. That’s not a lack of evidence, that’s basic logic.
“Interestingly, I think you would also find that the probability for deductive reasoning to be accurate increases when the subject itself is very stable and predictable. An excellent example of this would be the natural sciences, where the subject is nature, and is much less likely to be fallible than the social sciences, where the subject is society. Essentially all of the formulas used in science are the fruit of deductive reasoning. Math is the essence of deductive reasoning, and in that application it is nearly always spot-on. Getting back to how humans are fallible though, it is clear that deductive reasoning is far more likely to be wrong in the social sciences, where indeed statistics plays a major role.”
Using your logic, would then the need for God’s existence be the result of deductive reasoning and therefore, very accurate? What happens when you have two arguments that are logical based on deductive reasoning? Is there a “stage two” for evolution that goes beyond deductive reasoning?
I said, “‘I’ll bet even after 100 million years they’ll still be some form of canine. Why? Because after a 100 million years, you cannot demonstrate how once cell, even with billions of years, can evolve all the billions of types of feathers, wings, scales, muscles, organs, eyes, brains, etc. etc. etc. that we see today.’”
You replied, “Now that is a presumptuous statement if I’ve ever seen one. Since no one has even attempted it I don’t know why you say it cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, there is no reason to think it is impossible.”
Except the laws of nature. Sexual reproduction alone does not add new genetics to a species and so even if you have 100 million years of reproduction, you may get some pretty wild canines, but they’ll still be genetically linked to their ancestors as canines. Am I wrong here? I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but I’m yet to understand where that missing ingredient known as “natural selection” came from, how it pops on the scene in an infinitesimal amount of ways, and then drops away without leaving any clue how it happened.
You said, “I did not mean to say that the evidence points to a common ancestor. I meant to say the evidence makes a common ancestor plausible and therefore not a “presumptuous faith.” “
It is true that common ancestry is plausible if 1) if it is naturally possible to even have a first ancestor (which it is not apart from an intelligent designer), and 2) if there are sufficient, natural laws, that enable genetic evolution from one common cell to all known life and which also explains how all genetically impossible transitions are possible. If those two criteria are not met, common ancestry moves from “plausible” to “presumptuous.” If they are possible (which they‘re not), it still does not move to the realm of actual, but simply plausible.
You said, “There is a lot of evidence supporting the theory. There is NO evidence directly contradicting the theory.”
Except not being able to demonstrate how life could begin from non-life, how the Big Bang occurred naturally, and how all known natural laws and how those same observed laws could be broken in order to produce life and all genetic development naturally.
You said, “The problems you point out in evolution have nothing to do with existing evidence; they deal simply with a lack of evidence, some details that haven’t been directly observed as of yet—big deal, lots of theories weren’t definitively proven when they were conceived and humans began teaching them as true.”
Cause and effect isn’t just a lack of evidence! Cause and effect IS the evidence. It simply points the exact opposite direction. Instead of examining the evidence, evolutionists are trying to overcome the evidence, just like a person would try to find away around gravity. It simply cannot be done and it destroys that whole premise of the theory by natural means.
You said, “I strongly suspect that most Christians who have a problem with evolution interpret the Bible very literally, and because evolution seems to contradict one aspect of the Bible, those “literal” Christians feel evolution contradicts all of Christianity (because every part must be true), but the catch is I don’t think I know a single person who lives by every single word of the Bible. I know there are parts that by today’s standards seem entirely out-of-date and archaic. Does this mean God’s Word is out-of-date? Does this detract from what the Bible is saying? I don’t think so.”
I suspect that the parts you are referring to that people don’t live by any more would be the Mosaic Law. There are two reasons for that – 1) Because the Mosaic law was given exclusively to the Jewish nation, and 2) because Jesus claims to be the fulfillment of the law (lived it perfectly in letter and in spirit) and showed us that the purpose of the Mosaic law was to demonstrate that we simply can’t live up to God’s perfection and need His mercy as a Savior. If the Bible tells me that something is for me, I am to obey it. If it was written for someone else, they should obey it, not me. It doesn’t make it “out of date” it makes it pointed in it’s audience.
Being a Biblical literalists (like myself) simply means that the text can only mean what it meant. It must be interpreted in light of it’s context, historical culture, and it’s grammar – not simply making it say whatever we want it to say. It doesn’t mean that if you take “Judas went and hanged himself” and then pair it up with another verse somewhere else that says out of context, “go and do likewise” that it should be obeyed. This is common courtesy to everyone else – it should be for the Bible as well.
You said, “And yet, because some scientific theory contradicts a parable about the creation of life, that scientific theory must be trying to attack Christianity.”
The problem is that the Bible never sets up the creation account as a parable. Nowhere does it even allude to it. In fact, Jesus said much about creation and the epistles back it up even more, even stating that Jesus was the agent of all creation. It presents the Genesis creation account as fact, pure and simple. It’s either true, or it’s not, pure and simple.
You said, “I have attended a Christian church my entire life and I can tell you that the value I derive from the Bible has nothing to do with how God created the universe.”
If, as some theistic evolutionists attest, that God did create the universe by 100% means of evolution, it means that God did not do very much in creation and there is not much to praise Him for. The Bible claims that everything was created by God: the stars, planets, animals, fish, oceans, land, mankind, etc. Basically, by saying that it all happened naturalistically, you are robbing God of praise that He deserves. It’s like praising the paint and the brush for the Mona Lisa. That’s an insult to the master painter. The same is true with creation.
One other problem that Ed and I have gone back and forth on is the fact that if Darwinian evolution is true, you have pain and death before the fall of Adam. If that is true, then it DOES implicate God as the agent of suffering and death, not sinful rebellion. If theistic evolution is true, atheists would be correct for rejecting their worship of God.
You said, “The value of the Bible comes from the moral implications, the instructions on how to treat your fellow man, how you should live your life.”
I 100% agree with you! A.W. Tozer said, “Truth divorced from life is not truth in its Biblical sense, but something else and something less….No man is better for knowing that God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. The devil knows that, and so did Ahab and Judas Iscariot. No man is better for knowing that God so loved the world of men that He gave His only begotten Son to die for their redemption. In hell there are millions who know that. Theological truth is useless until it is obeyed. The purpose behind all doctrine is to secure moral action.”
That is one of my favorite quotes. You could have the whole Bible memorized and still have no morals and treat your fellow man wrongly (like the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day). There are plenty of YEC’s who are devoid of moral action (not to say I’m perfect by any stretch) , and it is very, very sad.
You said, “Indeed, if I were to change every name in the Bible to something else, would the Word of God lose any meaning? Absolutely not, or at least it shouldn’t. The importance of the Bible should not be in its historical accuracy. If you are a “literal” Christian, then this paragraph is probably blasphemy and you will probably disregard it, and you have every right to think that.”
It would only lose the title “true.” That is an important title however, and it is what separates the Bible from the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc. For example, the Book of Mormon talks of great cities like Zarahemla and great nations like the Nephites and the Lamanites, but there is no evidence such great civilizations ever existed. Not true with the Bible. It is painstakingly accurate – like locations, people’s names, when they ruled, etc. What even got me into blogging with Ed in the first place was that I was amused that critics of the Bible are so desperate to find problems with it that they are reading the dimensions of Solomon’s temple to find problems (i.e “gospelofreason.wordpress.com). If the Bible is not true in regard to history, science, etc, how do I know that it is accurate in its morality, promises of redemption and eternity, etc? How do I know that the 10 commandments are not just good ideas compiled by Moses (or someone else)? How do I know that Jesus wasn’t just a man? Yes, you could learn some good morals – just like there are good morals in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. But what sets the Bible apart? It has to be accurate. If it is not, then it is simply a historically rich document – nothing more.
You said, “You seem to have a very pessimistic perspective of the scientific community, maybe with good reason. If you are a devout creationist, I would imagine you have had more than your fair share of unpleasant run-ins with those militant atheists who think you are every bad word in the book, but I can tell you that any true scientist will hear and review all available evidence—it would be unscientific not to.”
I do not consider myself a “devout creationist.” That would indicate that I am defined by creationism. I hope that is not the case. My goal is to be defined by demonstrating the love of Christ. If not, my priorities are in the wrong place and I am wrong. Even though I am adamant about God and His Word, it does not mean that I cannot demonstrate grace and love to those who would disagree. Winning a debate is nothing – sharing the love of Christ is everything.
James, have you (as much as possible) considered the claims of the Bible and it’s case for a Supreme Creator? This blog is out of my comfort zone because I am trying to be open minded (as much as possible) to the views of others. If the Bible does not stand up to the scrutiny of a blog, that’s pretty sad. I must say, it is has stood up amazingly well (no surprise, I hope).
You said, “First, it only proves that “God” initiated the process that has led to where we are today. It supports the idea that God arbitrarily created life on earth just as much as it supports the idea that God initiated the Big Bang and we were the inevitable result.
Second, even if this is true, it does not mean the God you have proven to exist is the same God you think you worship; it just means that some force initiated the process and no further specification is given.”
I’ll take these two questions together since they are very similar. Hmmm…I suppose I would take the approach (at least as a starting point) that you can (to a limited degree) know about the designer from the design. What can we know about Leonardo da Vinci based on his works? 1) He had a great attention to detail and 2) was masterful at art and was a brilliant man. I’m sure there are plenty more to add, but I’m not da Vinci expert. Anyway, I would say that the same is true for God. What can we determine about Him based on the design? 1) He must be highly intelligent, 2) He must be highly powerful, 3) He must be highly creative and imaginative, 4) He must possess will (He chose to create), 5) He must remain constant (as an uncaused being He must remain powerful, creative, etc.), and 6) He must possess emotions (since He could not create something He did not at least understand and possess.) I’m sure there are more if you take more than 10 minutes to think about it.
I know the first criticism that will inevitably come up is if this is true, then we can deduce that God is cruel since there is suffering. I would answer that this statement is either 1) true, or 2) that something has happened since God created that brought suffering into the world.
Now, all that doesn’t prove that the God of the Bible is the God of creation. However, if you start worshipping the God that nature requires you’re going to be surprised to find that you’re worshipping a ‘god’ with the same characteristics of the God of the Bible. Take a minute and start paralleling the two, what do you find? The God of the Bible is the ONLY supposed “god” who adequately fit’s the description that is needed for our designer. All others fall short. So, even though it is not proven, it is certainly with the parameters of deductively reasonable/plausible (which is where faith comes in – faith is not required to believe God exists – faith is required to worship and trust in God as God) that the God who actually created is the same God described in the Bible.
You said, “Third, it does not prove that the God who was there at the beginning is still here now. You will notice that your proof only requires a God at the very beginning and at no other point.”
This one is simple because God is the cause. He could not be the cause unless He was uncaused, and therefore, eternal (i.e. His inexistence is impossible). If He ceased to exist then He is not eternal and would also be an effect, not a cause. Therefore, He must be in existence even as I type this.
I’ll try to reply to the other posts when I have time.
LikeLike
Hey Guys!
I will try to reply in a few days. I just wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
Joe said:
Darwin didn’t say “single ancestor.” He said there is a good case to be made for that, that all the evidence points that way.
What claim did Darwin make in his book, Origin of Species, that is not supported by evidence he offered then, Joe? Can you be specific?
I’ve always found Darwin to be very conservative. He was extremely exhaustive in his attempts to disprove evolution, especially in the 22 years between when he realized natural selection was doing the task, and when he published the work. He ran dozens, maybe hundreds of experiments, many of them reported quite fully in the book.
Darwin was not in the habit of conjecturing beyond the evidence he had. Where do you think he did?
LikeLike
James,
You said, “endorsing is significantly different than acknowledging the possibility.”
That is definitely true. However, if I am not mistaken, it seems that even acknowledging the possibility in a public school or university is deemed as violating the separation of church and state. However, as we’ve discussed here, the existence of God is not only possible, it is necessary. Anyone would acknowledge that just about anything is possible! You used the example of a meteor, but that doesn’t relate to God very well because a meteor is not necessary for my existence to be possible. Since God’s existence is necessary, it is not simply acknowledging the possibility but acknowledging the necessity. See the difference?
James, if this God does exist, it would be awfully cruel for Him to never do anything to reveal Himself to His creation, unless He were a mere impersonal force (which would be virtually impossible considering the creation is not impersonal). Atheists and agnostics would be right to reject worship of a God who is distant and uncaring of His creation. Knowledge of His existence is completely possible by simply using nature. However, personal knowledge is not possible unless God desires to make Himself known (you can’t build a relationship with someone by simply using scientific data – don’t believe me, ask your spouse!). So, the question is this – does God make Himself known to us? If He did, it is not for us to determine how He did that, but for Him to reveal Himself to us in the way He chooses (since we were created, it is evident that this creator has a will of His own which exists outside of our man-made concepts of Him). If He has no desire, then even though atheists wouldn’t be correct, agnostics and deists would be. The question is, are they?
One question Tor had was if people would believe in God’s existence outside of a “holy book.” My answer would be a definite “yes!” You and I are having this discussion completely separate any “holy book.” However, knowing this Creator personally and knowing about His existence are two totally different things. I believe you can know He exists, but I don’t believe you can know Him personally without His reaching out to us.
Cutting to the chase, it seems that the Bible is a “hindrance” to many people‘s concept of God, including yourself. This is where we get into the knitty gritty. There are many, many people who simply wish that if God existed that He would reveal Himself plainly. I sometimes feel that way too. However, if the Bible is true, God has revealed His heart to us more plainly today than at any point in human history, even during Jesus‘ ministry on earth. God does not have to reveal Himself to us through the Bible, and it claims that in years gone by, He has revealed Himself in many different ways. However, if this is how He chooses to reveal Himself today, that is up to Him. The Bible not only details how God has acted in the past, but His desire for a personal, one on one, real relationship with people. It details how and who (Jesus) makes this relationship possible. It tells us what God desires for us in this relationship. It even goes so far as to reveal to us what God will do in the (near?) future (not everything of course, but some main key points).
The Bible is a stumbling block to so many people because there are some 40 authors of the various books spanning 1,500 plus years of writing history. So, if it is just written by fallible men then all we know of God is fallible, right? However, the Bible makes the claim that when these men spoke, God Himself directed in what they should write and revealed Himself to mankind through what was written. So, the question is, is what the Bible says about itself true, or is the Bible’s claim a lie and He revealed Himself elsewhere or not at all? For this to be determined, there are many internal as well as external things that need to be looked at. Tor brought up a few, which I’ll answer when I get there. Personally, if it were not true, I would never have expected these human authors to include points that make them look unfavorable (like Moses including his failures, David including his, John accurately recording that women had found Jesus’ empty tomb while he and the disciples were hiding in fear for their lives [a very big shame on men in the ancient world], Paul including his failures, etc.). They would never have “invented” a system of belief that requires faith in anything or glorified anything else but themselves (compare the Bible to every other religious work [like the Book of Mormon and the Quran] and you’ll be amazed). There are many, many more reasons which we can detail if you desire, but suffice it to say at this point, that even though fallible men were used to write the Bible, the Bible claims that they were directed by God (not dictated, but directed). Let me ask you this – would the Bible be different if it was written by Jews locked into Judaism? Catholics? Baptists? Lutherans? Jehovah’s Witnesses (they DID change the Bible to make it fit their beliefs!)? It goes a long way to demonstrate that what people (even of the time it was written) would have written is far different than what is actually found on the pages of Scripture. The Gnostic gospels are a good example of what would be written it were an invention of mere men.
The problem is that mankind has taken what God has done and said and have shaped it and molded it into man-made systems of religion. It’s terribly sad to see what God intended reduced to rote orthodoxy and cold, meaningless liturgy. People have taken God’s desire for a meaningful relationship with His creation and turned it into a tool for personal aspirations and goals. The history of the church since Jesus is plagued with horrific atrocities which are almost unspeakable. The Gospel has been completely lost in many religions who claim to follow the Bible.
I actually will take issue with your statement that nature is “infallible.” If it were infallible, I would not be wearing glasses right now. If nature were infallible, entropy would not exist. Death and disease would not exist. Suffice it to say – evolution would not even exist because everything would have already been infallible. However, even though it is fallible does not mean that it was originally created this way. Something could have happened that would have changed what was originally created into something less. Fallibility of nature does not necessitate that God made it fallible. I’m not saying that the rocks lie, I’m saying that the earth is no longer perfect.
You asked, “if nature deceived us humans then how could we have advanced as far as we have and accomplished all that we have accomplished in the past 6,000 years?”
I’m not sure if you mean all of nature or just mankind. If it is just mankind there is no issue there, because recorded history only goes back roughly that far (I’m not a brown nosed 6,000 year person, but I doubt the earth to be more than 10-12,000 years since recorded history only goes back so far). We have made huge advancements in only a short amount of time! Even within the last 200 years the scope of man’s achievements have been huge!
Got to stop again!
LikeLike
Tor,
There is a difference between skeptical of something with the purpose of disproving it and being skeptical of something with an open mind/heart to believing it. I’m not sure which you are, but if you are the former, nothing I say here, nor anyone says anywhere, will ever convince you and there will never be adequate answers to your questions.
LikeLike
And one more thing:
If there is a creator, how can this entity be gendered, as it is a limiting parameter on a being that necessarily must be greater than what is known from nature?
LikeLike
Hi leavell:
Suffice it to say that I am not convinced. I look forward to your next post.
Best,
Tor
LikeLike
James and Tor,
I don’t have much time left today, so I will have to write you back in pieces, if that’s ok. James, I’ll write you back first since your post was first.
You said, “Evolution does not definitively state what the origins of life or the universe are. If the uncertainties you refer to are the origins of life or the universe, then I don’t believe evolution factors into the equation. Evolution says it is likely all life as we know it has a common origin; evolution does not say what this origin is or what caused the conditions of this origin to arise. Therefore, there need not be a conflict between evolution and creationism (unless of course you think the earth is 6000 years old.”
To me, this has always been a cop out of evolutionists. My thought has always been that of course evolution doesn’t state the origins of life or the universe because it can’t! The reason it can’t is because a naturalistic beginning is contrary to the laws of science. Evolutionists seek to explain what happened AFTER the beginning of what we don’t know happened. Within the evolutionary framework, the naturalistic concept of life from non-life is the worst theory put forth by evolutionists. Since all nature demonstrates life from life, would it not be the best view that all life is the result of a Life? If it is necessary, why is it religious in nature? Simply because someone worships this designer as God? People worship trees and yet we don’t stop acknowledging their existence. Because people worship this “God” does not mean it cannot be acknowledged as existing by the scientific community.
You said, “Because scientists have accumulated so much evidence in favor of evolution (and no contradicting evidence), they deem the theory worthy of being taught; just as scientists deemed gravity as worthy of being taught even before the mechanism behind gravity was discovered.”
But molecules to man is not evidence that has been accumulated or demonstrated. I firmly agree that you can demonstrate hands down how one species can adapt and change within the framework of its DNA. I find it very fascinating, myself! What cannot be demonstrated is the adequate factor for the evolution of one single celled organism to you and me. I’m all for teaching how a species can change through reproduction, even to an almost unrecognizable form from the original (corn for example) – that is well documented. However, what is not documented is how changes within the species can introduce completely foreign things such as new bones, muscles, joints, feathers, scales, organs, instincts, abilities, hormones, etc. etc. etc. Genetic mutation does not adequately answer where the new information comes from either.
These are not simply holes in the theory. But on the flip side, evolution should not rise and fall as a whole unit. The good things that have been learned (like how to grow corn) should be accepted and celebrated, but the false information (like molecules to man) should be discarded as false. It’s not an all or nothing in science.
You said, “It is not that scientists think the missing pieces in evolution theory will be ironed out soon, it is that they think there is enough supporting (and no contradicting) evidence to justify designating the theory as true. Designating a theory as true does not mean that it has been proven.”
I understand how that works, and I’m fine with that. You don’t have to understand how something works to understand that it is there. How I’m able to type on my keyboard in CA and you’re able to read it wherever you are just boggles my mind, but I accept it as true, even if I don’t understand how it all works. However, in the case of evolution (which I usually mean to be the belief in a common ancestor), it is not simply a case of not knowing “how” but overcoming natural barriers that are observably impassible. So, taking your pi illustration for example, with evolution it isn’t simply that the theory of pi works within the known system and we can’t understand how or why, it is that the theory works directly against what we know is true and we don’t know why or how to overcome the barrier. There’s a big difference! Increasing genetic information from a mere molecule to a complex human being simply works against the laws of nature. It is something that evolutionists are striving to reconcile. You are trying to tell me that in essence, with evolution, that the law of gravity can be defied naturalistically though we have no idea how it could even be possible. If you told me that you could fly, and simply brought forth a red cape as proof, I would want to see you fly first. If you’re telling me that molecules can turn into something complex over time and bring up diversity in the fossil record as proof, I would really want you to demonstrate (which is science) how it is possible for a single cell to reproduce in the first generation and to increase its genetic information zillions of times until we have every living thing we see today?
I said, ‘But being said, at present, they stand to refute the premise of the whole theory of evolution.’
You replied, “Because evolution does not deal with the cause of all life or the universe, I would have to disagree.”
Usually if you try to build a building without a foundation, you will not get a solid building. My main issue with evolution is that it has no foundation – no answer to the origin of life, and no answer to how molecules to man and simple to complex is naturalistically and scientifically possible. Yet the theory seeks to say that those problems are ok because the theory doesn’t even bother to attempt to answer them. If all the scientific evidence that we have demonstrates that life from non life is impossible, then life shouldn’t exist! But it does! One cell mutating through zillions of generations until you get to me is contrary to observable laws of nature! But I’m here! This means that the premise of evolution (common ancestor) is flawed. Therefore, I cannot be, and will never be a Darwinian evolutionist. It would simply be intellectually dishonest.
You said, “I suppose it depends on what you think the intelligent designer is. I see you use the word “God” often. If we take the Christian God to be the intelligent designer, clearly God’s existence is religious in nature.”
My question is, “Why?” Why must the Christian God be religious in nature? If it is the Christian God that is the actual God, then His existence is actual and not religious. Worship of said God would be religious in nature. Existence is not.
You said, “Because the Christian “intelligent designer” is supernatural by assumption, He is inherently unscientific, as science cannot begin to tackle any supernatural force or event. This is what I was referring to because I believe most creationists are Christian and espouse Christian views. I realize this does not encompass all conceptions of an “intelligent designer,” but I believe it encompasses most.”
I’ll have to end here, even if I don’t want to end. His being may be supernatural by assumption, but the necessity for His existence is perfectly compatible with science. I believe that even though there are “Christian” scientists, they are by and large very fearful of being perceived as unobjective and fanatical. This goes back to the censorship that we were talking about earlier. Acknowledging God existence isn’t religious by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is pretty easy to deduce that if God does exist, then we are accountable to Him as His creation, which is what people are really rejecting. I have yet to meet an atheist who has a problem with God’s existence. What they object to is being accountable to said God and do not trust His character.
You have me pegged as a Christian, of which I am not ashamed. I am pretty into this Jesus stuff. : -) I can get into why a lot more in the future as I reply to Tor’s post, but suffice it to say in a few points that 1) the intelligent designer must be eternal (has to be uncaused), which makes His existence in the present as well. 2) The uncaused cause must be all knowing (His knowledge of information must be greater than the universe’s information in order to have created all the information), 3) the ID must be all powerful (must have had the power to create), 4) there must only be one ID (there cannot be two necessary causes, and there cannot be two being who have all possible perfections attributed to them. In order to be two beings there would have to be at least one difference- where there is no difference, there is only one being). This Intelligent Designer that you would need to design is exactly identical to the God of the Bible. That doesn’t prove the Bible to be true, but it demonstrates that the God that the Bible portrays is the same God necessary for creation. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the basics of why the God the Bible describes is accurate to describe the Intelligent Designer. Thor, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. all do not possess the necessary qualities needed to be the necessary cause. The God of the Bible does.
I really need to go. I’ll post more later, if I can.
LikeLike
One last thing:
There are about 131,00 words in the New Testament. We have about 139,000 variants of the Bible.
If the Bible is the definitive word on the origins of life, please state exactly which variant of this book should be chosen as the infallible word of our creator.
LikeLike
We have evolution scientists because we have nature. This is where the evidence is found.
This is the question for me:
Would we have creationists if we did not have a holy book?
And if we did, would these creationists propose god to be a father or a mother?
And if they transcended that duality, would they posit that god was a shapeless destroyer (as entropy is such a major force in nature,) or a fallible creator? (Case in point: I’m wearing glasses. Did god just mess up, and fail in his or her attempt to give me good eyesight? Or does he/she have a plan for the errors I make with my less than perfect eyesight?)
Which god should we teach our children about in science class? Any? All of them? (GodChecker.com lists over 2,850.)
I would like to hear some creationists weigh in on which gods may be acceptable for a creationist curriculum, and how they should be regarded or potentially revered.
Lastly, if you have an opinion on this issue please indicate how your view would square with the First Amendment and the Treaty of Tangiers.
LikeLike
Sorry for the absurdly long response. I definitely did not intend for that to happen. In fact, it took me so long to respond to you that if you post another equally long response there is a chance I won’t respond—NOT because I concede the argument, but because I simply don’t have the time. On the other hand, I may just spread my response over a longer period of time. However, regardless, I have greatly enjoyed this.
LikeLike
lowerleavell,
‘What I am saying is that things that are NOT observable or testable (like where did life come from?) are in the “not so much” category of certainty. However, these uncertainties are presented as mere blips and small details that we’ll get ironed out soon.’
Evolution does not definitively state what the origins of life or the universe are. If the uncertainties you refer to are the origins of life or the universe, then I don’t believe evolution factors into the equation. Evolution says it is likely all life as we know it has a common origin; evolution does not say what this origin is or what caused the conditions of this origin to arise. Therefore, there need not be a conflict between evolution and creationism (unless of course you think the earth is 6000 years old. Because scientists have accumulated so much evidence in favor of evolution (and no contradicting evidence), they deem the theory worthy of being taught; just as scientists deemed gravity as worthy of being taught even before the mechanism behind gravity was discovered. It is not that scientists think the missing pieces in evolution theory will be ironed out soon, it is that they think there is enough supporting (and no contradicting) evidence to justify designating the theory as true. Designating a theory as true does not mean that it has been proven. For instance, the irrationality of pi was discovered by the ancient Greeks; not until 2000 years later was this fact rigorously and undeniably proven. Imagine what would have happened if the ancient Greeks had not been satisfied with merely designating pi being irrational as true and instead refused to progress with all mathematical thought until it had been proven; the invention of calculus might have been postponed another 1000 years!
‘But being said, at present, they stand to refute the premise of the whole theory of evolution.’
Because evolution does not deal with the cause of all life or the universe, I would have to disagree.
‘Why is the existence of an intelligent designer religious in nature?’
I suppose it depends on what you think the intelligent designer is. I see you use the word “God” often. If we take the Christian God to be the intelligent designer, clearly God’s existence is religious in nature. Because the Christian “intelligent designer” is supernatural by assumption, He is inherently unscientific, as science cannot begin to tackle any supernatural force or event. This is what I was referring to because I believe most creationists are Christian and espouse Christian views. I realize this does not encompass all conceptions of an “intelligent designer,” but I believe it encompasses most.
‘Scientists somehow think that they lose their objectivity and credibility for simply acknowledging God may possibly exist.’
I think you probably think this because scientists’ rejection of teaching the possibility of intelligent design appears to be a statement that scientists think intelligent design is unscientific and therefore not valid, thereby effectively saying they will lose credibility for endorsing it. However, “endorsing” is significantly different from “acknowledging the possibility.” For example, I can acknowledge the possibility that right this moment there may be a small meteor headed straight for my house, but as soon as I step outside and look up I will see that there is not (I hope), and after I see this I will endorse the statement that there is no meteor headed straight for my house because I can observe this. Likewise, I can acknowledge the possibility that God (or some other intelligent designer) exists; however, in this case I run into quite a bit of trouble if I want to explore this possibility and determine whether or not I can endorse this stance. What do I do? Well, I can go to many different kinds of churches, read many different kinds of religious texts, do a lot of research, maybe go see some places where God is said to have physically been. The only problem is that all the evidence I will find is either in humans themselves or created by humans at some point in time; and you yourself said that ‘But my point in my statement was that one constant is sure, humans are fallible.’ The only evidence I will be able to find supporting the possibility of the “intelligent designer’s” existence is fallible. Here is where science and religion diverge, because religion mollifies this problem by inserting the aspect of “faith” into the equation, whereas science attempts to ignore that premise entirely by instead focusing attention on aspects of our world that are independent of fallible humans (i.e. nature). I think you and I will both agree that nature is not fallible, for if it were then the “intelligent designer” would have created a fallible world; fallible in the sense that nature could possibly deceive us humans, but if nature deceived us humans then how could we have advanced as far as we have and accomplished all that we have accomplished in the past 6,000 years?
The issue here is whether or not to teach our children the “possibilities of intelligent design.” If we did this, the door would be open for teaching them ALL of the “possibilities,” and in the long run I do not think this would be a productive use of our time. We need to present kids with evidence and reasonably well-established principles based on evidence. I do not think this can be done with intelligent design.
‘I believe that Mohammed existed and is a historical figure. As a Christian, I am not threatened by acknowledging the facts. However, acknowledging Mohammed’s existence does not mean I lose credibility as a Christian and worship him any more than a scientist should lose credibility to acknowledging the possibility of God’s existence.’
This may be a flawed analogy. As a Christian, you acknowledge Mohammed to be none other than perhaps an extraordinary human being. Acknowledging the existence of a human being is not the same as acknowledging the existence of a supernatural entity.
‘So, even though I only represent myself, I for one apologize for those who name Jesus’ name and yet do not demonstrate the love of Christ’
Thank you, and may I apologize on behalf of all scientists who do not show respect for your Constitutional rights.
‘Simply because God is not “testable” by your definition does not go to show one way or the other regarding His existence.’
Very true; however, because no evidence can be obtained one way or the other on this issue, it shows that God’s existence can only ever remain a possibility and nothing more.
‘It merely demonstrates that He will not lower Himself to your standards in order to prove a moot point.’
That may very well be the case.
‘Again, many atheists wouldn’t worship Him even if He proved His existence, so why would He do something like subject Himself to a scientific community who wouldn’t worship Him anyway?’
If I were presented with this hypothetical-type question, I would acknowledge His existence, sure, but whether or not I worship Him would depend on whether or not He told me to worship Him and just how He says I should do it; not to mention whether or not he tells me if it will serve a practical purpose (that is, if it will accomplish anything). At any rate, an atheist could easily respond by saying “Since I do not believe in God, this could never happen, so I don’t have to worry about it.” The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that both sides can take their own hypothetical side. A Christian will say they are right because they have faith; an atheist will say they are right because they don’t have faith. Both sides are equally valid if all human beings are equal, so no ground can be given by either side in cases like these.
‘Deductive reasoning does not always pan out. For example, I can deduce that from your name “James” you are a man, but it may be that your parents had a girl and named you “James” so you would be unique. It’s not likely, but it is possible that even though I am being logical, I am still wrong.’
This is true. Deductive reasoning differs in accuracy from application to application; in some it is more accurate, in others less so. However, I think I can safely say that if you ascertained the probability that deductive reasoning is correct for any particular application you would find that you are far more likely to be correct using deductive reasoning than using some other method—not always, but a majority of the time. Like you said, “It’s not likely, but is possible that even though I am being logical, I am still wrong.” In this case, though, you would have been correct. I am indeed a man. Interestingly, I think you would also find that the probability for deductive reasoning to be accurate increases when the subject itself is very stable and predictable. An excellent example of this would be the natural sciences, where the subject is nature, and is much less likely to be fallible than the social sciences, where the subject is society. Essentially all of the formulas used in science are the fruit of deductive reasoning. Math is the essence of deductive reasoning, and in that application it is nearly always spot-on. Getting back to how humans are fallible though, it is clear that deductive reasoning is far more likely to be wrong in the social sciences, where indeed statistics plays a major role.
‘I’ll bet even after 100 million years they’ll still be some form of canine. Why? Because after a 100 million years, you cannot demonstrate how once cell, even with billions of years, can evolve all the billions of types of feathers, wings, scales, muscles, organs, eyes, brains, etc. etc. etc. that we see today.’
Now that is a presumptuous statement if I’ve ever seen one. Since no one has even attempted it I don’t know why you say it cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, there is no reason to think it is impossible.
‘Your logic does not demonstrate where the new information comes from in order to produce all of the variations that we see today from the one RNA (or DNA, or whatever) strand that began all life (and who knows where that came from!).’
My logic was not intended to demonstrate where the new information comes from. My logic dealt simply with time and magnitude of change–not mechanism for change.
‘I will disagree with you that the evidence points to a common ancestor,’
I did not mean to say that the evidence points to a common ancestor. I meant to say the evidence makes a common ancestor plausible and therefore not a “presumptuous faith.”
‘However, considering there is no solution to where life came from, evolutionists take it on faith (it’s a trigger word for evolutionists, but it fits) that it happened naturally without the aid of any higher power or being. Since none of us were there, and it is unscientific to speculate what happened, then it is simply a matter of faith…whichever presupposition you choose. That is why I said it was “presumptuous faith.” I simply choose to believe the one who said He was there at the beginning.’
Again, I do not think the theory of evolution belligerently says “GOD DOES NOT EXIST”; it just says that based on what we can see about species, what we know about biology, what we can see in geology and the fossil record, descent from a common ancestor seems very plausible; nothing about God or the universe or when, where, and how it all started, just life, maybe life as we know it is the result of this evolution. There is a lot of evidence supporting the theory. There is NO evidence directly contradicting the theory. The problems you point out in evolution have nothing to do with existing evidence; they deal simply with a lack of evidence, some details that haven’t been directly observed as of yet—big deal, lots of theories weren’t definitively proven when they were conceived and humans began teaching them as true.
What is interesting to me is that so many Christians think evolution makes God impossible or something to that extent. Honestly, it just depends on how you interpret the Bible. I strongly suspect that most Christians who have a problem with evolution interpret the Bible very literally, and because evolution seems to contradict one aspect of the Bible, those “literal” Christians feel evolution contradicts all of Christianity (because every part must be true), but the catch is I don’t think I know a single person who lives by every single word of the Bible. I know there are parts that by today’s standards seem entirely out-of-date and archaic. Does this mean God’s Word is out-of-date? Does this detract from what the Bible is saying? I don’t think so. And yet, because some scientific theory contradicts a parable about the creation of life, that scientific theory must be trying to attack Christianity. I have attended a Christian church my entire life and I can tell you that the value I derive from the Bible has nothing to do with how God created the universe. The value of the Bible comes from the moral implications, the instructions on how to treat your fellow man, how you should live your life. Indeed, if I were to change every name in the Bible to something else, would the Word of God lose any meaning? Absolutely not, or at least it shouldn’t. The importance of the Bible should not be in its historical accuracy. If you are a “literal” Christian, then this paragraph is probably blasphemy and you will probably disregard it, and you have every right to think that.
‘However, if you even hint that the evidence points to the need for an ultimate cause for all of this, then you are labeled as a religious fanatic off hand.’
You seem to have a very pessimistic perspective of the scientific community, maybe with good reason. If you are a devout creationist, I would imagine you have had more than your fair share of unpleasant run-ins with those militant atheists who think you are every bad word in the book, but I can tell you that any true scientist will hear and review all available evidence—it would be unscientific not to.
‘Observed science shows that you do not have life appear from something that is not alive.’
Again, I will freely admit that the theory of evolution has not been undeniably proven, but just because some body of evidence has not yet been found does not mean it is not there.
‘Therefore, God is not a concept, He is a needed actuality. It is not deductive reasoning or God of the gaps; He is necessary, and thus, actually exists.’
I tend to agree with you in this regard. However, I should clarify some things:
First, it only proves that “God” initiated the process that has led to where we are today. It supports the idea that God arbitrarily created life on earth just as much as it supports the idea that God initiated the Big Bang and we were the inevitable result.
Second, even if this is true, it does not mean the God you have proven to exist is the same God you think you worship; it just means that some force initiated the process and no further specification is given.
Third, it does not prove that the God who was there at the beginning is still here now. You will notice that your proof only requires a God at the very beginning and at no other point.
LikeLike
my appologies for no paragraph spaces. They were there when I wrote it out on Word, but then were gone when I posted on here. Sorry.
LikeLike
James, thanks for jumping in:
You said, “In science, and even in mathematics, there is arguably no such thing as absolute certainty. However, for most events we consider certain, the uncertainty can be considered so low that for all practical purposes the event is certain. Say I drop an apple over and over again. The apple striking the floor in the same fashion each time ought to be fairly certain, but if we were to actually take as many factors as we can think of into account we would find that there is some slight possibility something unusual could happen.”
I agree with your assessment. That is why I cringe when people say there is no such law as biogenesis and that cause and effect does not mean that God is the answer. Gravity is a great example because while we can witness the effects of gravity, no one can claim to have seen or witnessed gravity itself, since it is a force and we merely witness its powerful results. While God is not a “force” like you see on Star Wars, we certainly can conclude that life is an effect, not a cause, considering we did not make ourselves exist. For that reason, it is “certain” to claim that we must have a cause. Also, with life from non-life – this is never observed (Ed is banking on RNA but after literally trillions of test subjects (lab evolution), RNA has never been observed turning into DNA, etc, until you get you and me). So, I would agree with you, that things that are observed carry a lot of weight. But my point in my statement was that one constant is sure, humans are fallible. That being said, whether scientists are right or wrong, many (including Ed) come dangerously close to worshipping the ground scientists walk on, and the same goes for men such as Darwin. My observation was that I’ve never heard Ed say anything negative against anything that Darwin has said. I would love to see a systematic thread done by Ed that details the areas that Darwin may have been wrong. Would it not be possible with any scientist, that they have error? Surely it is possible for even a good scientist would put forth theories that are not above mistake.
You said, “but to claim that this flexibility undermines any credibility in science is senseless because the world operates under these conditions every second of every day.”
I did not make such claim. Much of what scientists are saying is accurate and true, even in regards to evolution. A lot of medical research has benefited from the view that viruses evolve and change, etc. Those things are fine and dandy and I am appreciative for the work that is being done. What I am saying is that things that are NOT observable or testable (like where did life come from?) are in the “not so much” category of certainty. However, these uncertainties are presented as mere blips and small details that we’ll get ironed out soon. But being said, at present, they stand to refute the premise of the whole theory of evolution. Since matters like the origin of life, and common descent from a singular ancestor are not observed in nature, or in the fossil record, then alternate theories (such as an intelligent creator) should not be shunned, but studied.
You said, “I tend to agree, except on the censorship. Due to the content of the article and your message, I presume you mean religious ideas when you say “outside the establishment” ideas. It would certainly follow that religion does not belong within the establishment of science, but only because of its inherent unscientific (untestable) nature, and not because anyone harbors any ill will towards it.”
Why is the existence of an intelligent designer religious in nature? Everything could be categorized as religious in nature under those terms. For example, pantheism (God is nature) would be completely within the realm of science. I hear the term “mother nature” all the time on the Discovery Channel, and no one bats an eye. However, it’s simply nature worship in another form, but indeed, very religious. It seems to me that the God of the Bible is the only real offensive character in the scientific community. However, the scientific community needs to understand that the existence of God and worship of God are two totally different things. I’ve talked with many atheists who would not worship God even if He physically appeared to them and told them He undeniably exists. So, you can acknowledge His existence, but not worship Him. Scientists somehow think that they lose their objectivity and credibility for simply acknowledging God may possibly exist. I believe that Mohammed existed and is a historical figure. As a Christian, I am not threatened by acknowledging the facts. However, acknowledging Mohammed’s existence does not mean I lose credibility as a Christian and worship him any more than a scientist should lose credibility to acknowledging the possibility of God’s existence.
Ill will is certainly being propagated from the “scientific” community by men such as Dawkins and even by people like Ed (calling Creationists terrorists certainly doesn’t breed feelings of warmth and peace). I appreciate the spirit of your post however, and did not sense any “ill will.” Thank you. Unfortunately, there are people in the religious community who have created much “ill will” towards the scientific community as well. I find nowhere in the Bible where it says we are allowed to hate someone. Yet I have read much hate speech from bloggers who claim to be Christians, which to me is farcical. Jesus said, “Why do you call me Lord and do not do the things I say?” So, even though I only represent myself, I for one apologize for those who name Jesus’ name and yet do not demonstrate the love of Christ (although we all fall short from time to time).
Simply because God is not “testable” by your definition does not go to show one way or the other regarding His existence. It merely demonstrates that He will not lower Himself to your standards in order to prove a moot point. Again, many atheists wouldn’t worship Him even if He proved His existence, so why would He do something like subject Himself to a scientific community who wouldn’t worship Him anyway? Jesus said that for some people, even if someone were raised from the dead and told them, they still wouldn’t believe.
I said, ‘But the premise of an intelligent designer is not accepted as being even a remote possibility by entrenched people who “stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts.”’
You replied, “To which facts do you refer?”
My two “facts” are “cause and effect” as well as “biogenesis.” Scientists give lip service to these things but refuse to acknowledge the need to overcome the problem. Ed has shared in our discussions of the Big Bang that to ask where it came from is pretty much irrelevant. Why? It is one of the most relevant questions we could possibly ask!
You said, “If small changes occur on small intervals of time, is it not logical (or at least plausible) that drastic changes can occur over enormous intervals of time?”
Deductive reasoning does not always pan out. For example, I can deduce that from your name “James” you are a man, but it may be that your parents had a girl and named you “James” so you would be unique. It’s not likely, but it is possible that even though I am being logical, I am still wrong. Deductive reasoning (in this case) is an argument from silence and again, is not a valid argument. I would agree that it is plausible that drastic changes can occur over enormous intervals of time. Not a problem there. You keep breeding dogs for thousands of generation you’re going to get some pretty interesting breeds. But you know what? I’ll bet even after 100 million years they’ll still be some form of canine. Why? Because after a 100 million years, you cannot demonstrate how once cell, even with billions of years, can evolve all the billions of types of feathers, wings, scales, muscles, organs, eyes, brains, etc. etc. etc. that we see today. Your logic does not demonstrate where the new information comes from in order to produce all of the variations that we see today from the one RNA (or DNA, or whatever) strand that began all life (and who knows where that came from!). All the time in the world could not produce something from nothing. It may be possible…but scientists haven’t demonstrated how.
You said, “It really just boils down to the question, “when do you think it all began?” If you want to believe it all began 6,000 years ago, then all life being plunked down at once certainly seems logical, but if you look at what most evidence points to, descent from a common ancestor isn’t really a “presumptuous faith.” However, I grant you that it is also not a proven fact.”
Your statement is fair and very gracious; I appreciate the spirit in which it was written. I will disagree with you that the evidence points to a common ancestor, but I appreciate you admitting that it is not a proven fact. Here’s the main problem with this discussion – both sides have very good points. If you believe the Bible, it is amazing how well the evidence lines up under that presupposition. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, it is amazing at how well the evidence lines up under THAT presupposition as well (it is a brilliant theory – no bones about it). Basically, we are both looking at the same evidence, but our presuppositions dictate how we interpret them. For example, I see something like the Grand Canyon being evidence for the flood whereas you see the Grand Canyon as evidence of millions of years of erosion. But both of us agree that the Grand Canyon is real and is frankly, awesome. We can look at the evidence of fossils, DNA, etc. adaptation within various species, and I will look at it as evidence of a powerful God. You look at it as evidence of natural selection. My problem is that I am being told that my presupposition is the result of faith and that the evolutionary presuppositions aren’t. However, considering there is no solution to where life came from, evolutionists take it on faith (it’s a trigger word for evolutionists, but it fits) that it happened naturally without the aid of any higher power or being. Since none of us were there, and it is unscientific to speculate what happened, then it is simply a matter of faith…whichever presupposition you choose. That is why I said it was “presumptuous faith.” I simply choose to believe the one who said He was there at the beginning.
You said, “Don’t say that no one has the guts to challenge the world; it happens, and when it does, amazing things come of it. I would hope that anyone who has solid evidence for God show it to the world, and if they appeared to have good grounds, I would help them do it.”
I agree that within the mindset of evolution, people are free to challenge, argue, and peer review as much as they want. However, if you even hint that the evidence points to the need for an ultimate cause for all of this, then you are labeled as a religious fanatic off hand. If two major, major roadblocks in a naturalistic theory of the beginning of life (cause and effect and biogenesis) are not reason enough to be given a forum regarding evidence for God then I do not know of anything that would be heard. Observed science shows that you do not see an effect without a cause for it (by the way, there need not be an infinite regress of causes – only things that are finite, changing, dependent beings need causes – God is not an effect). Observed science shows that you do not have life appear from something that is not alive. These are the closest things to truth any scientist I’ve talked with will admit. However, the status quo of science today is that we indeed had…somehow…an uncaused effect and life from nothing…somehow. There are various theories of how that happened, but to question that main paradigm is anathema, unconstitutional, religious fanaticism, terrorism, propagandizing, etc.
Outside the box of accepted science in regard to the existence of life would be to argue that the only adequate explanation for why there is life, intelligence, existence, etc. at all, rather than nothing at all, is that something that could be nothing is caused to exist by something that cannot be nothing. God’s existence is not simply potential, it is necessary (i.e. there is no observed life coming from non-life and no effect coming from no cause). And since it is necessary, it is actual. For example, I have parents. You have never met my parents; have never scientifically tested them, etc. However, you know that since I exist, it is necessary for me to have parents since I am not a cause but rather an effect. Since it is necessary for my parents to exist in order for me to exist, then my parents actually exist, even though it is “unscientific” to dogmatically say so. Since we exist and we did not come from nothing, it is necessary for something outside of nothing to have caused our existence. Therefore, God is not a concept, He is a needed actuality. It is not deductive reasoning or God of the gaps; He is necessary, and thus, actually exists.
LikeLike
lowerleavell, if I may,
‘On the flipside, I believe it is dangerous to put too much faith into mankind. Look at how much scientists have changed their positions on various things over the years…all the, “We used to say such and such, but no one believes that anymore” because of observed data.’
In science, and even in mathematics, there is arguably no such thing as absolute certainty. However, for most events we consider certain, the uncertainty can be considered so low that for all practical purposes the event is certain. Say I drop an apple over and over again. The apple striking the floor in the same fashion each time ought to be fairly certain, but if we were to actually take as many factors as we can think of into account we would find that there is some slight possibility something unusual could happen.
So anyway, the important thing to remember about science is that there are some things we can be reasonably certain about, others not so much; but to claim that this flexibility undermines any credibility in science is senseless because the world operates under these conditions every second of every day.
‘I would say that our educational problems are more closely linked to laziness, selfishness, and a censorship of “outside the establishment” ideas than anything else.’
I tend to agree, except on the censorship. Due to the content of the article and your message, I presume you mean religious ideas when you say “outside the establishment” ideas. Then you must be referring to the establishment of science? It would certainly follow that religion does not belong within the establishment of science, but only because of its inherent unscientific (untestable) nature, and not because anyone harbors any ill will towards it.
‘But the premise of an intelligent designer is not accepted as being even a remote possibility by entrenched people who “stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts.”’
To which facts do you refer?
‘However, he took his observations way past where the evidence led into the view that we are all descended from a single ancestor. That simply is not a proven fact but a matter of presumptuous faith.’
This depends on how you look at things, and what your personal beliefs happen to be, but more than anything else, it is a logical conclusion based on what evidence we have. No one denies that evolution takes place today, that it accounts for variation, etc.. Well, even 1,000 years insignificant compared to estimates of the age of the earth. If small changes occur on small intervals of time, is it not logical (or at least plausible) that drastic changes can occur over enormous intervals of time? Fossils are clear evidence that life has been around for a while. It really just boils down to the question, “when do you think it all began?” If you want to believe it all began 6,000 years ago, then all life being plunked down at once certainly seems logical, but if you look at what most evidence points to, descent from a common ancestor isn’t really a “presumptuous faith.” However, I grant you that it is also not a proven fact.
In regard to the rest: speaking as a scientist, I can tell you that if I am confronted with compelling evidence, if I have this evidence peer-reviewed, tested, replicated, and tested again, and it comes out clean on the other side, I would not only acknowledge their success, I would attend their seminars, and generally hear out what they have to say. The fact of the matter is that scientists challenge other scientists all the time. Einstein up heaved the way we think about the universe. He had to challenge all existing evidence, but he did it anyway, because he had evidence of his own that he felt was solid enough to withstand scrutiny. Don’t say that no one has the guts to challenge the world; it happens, and when it does, amazing things come of it. I would hope that anyone who has solid evidence for God show it to the world, and if they appeared to have good grounds, I would help them do it.
LikeLike
Ed said, “Welcome back, Joe.”
Thanks Ed. Well, I never really went anywhere, but I have been very busy and wanted to give you ample time to see if you would reply on the subject of abortion that we were discussing. I really am not looking to get into another discussion with you on evolution, unless you really want to, because threads between the two of us usually end with me posting and you getting “busy” somewhere else and not replying. So, all things considered, I am wondering if my time is best spent elsewhere.
However, since you felt the need to give me a reply, I will do the same and reply to your post.
You said, “One, here in Texas creationists claim that “a lot” of scientists think there is science to be had in creationism. The percentage is not growing as they claim, but shrinking — even here in deepest, darkest Fundamentalist America.”
I would agree with your statement. Many even in Christian circles have adapted a marketing style of argument and have attempted to make ID or even Creationism seem (unsuccessfully) to be the hip new thing. “Expelled”, I believe, was one attempt to do that, as well as to share the fact that tenure is difficult to attain when people believe that you are (how did you put it) an “incompetent scientist” simply because you believe that the origin of life is not explained in Darwin’s theory and might (even using the word “might” is enough to be labeled “incompetent”) have originated from someone or something intelligent. The Darwinians have successfully demonized the Creationist movement to the place where their prodigies (including you) think that we are paramount to mental terrorists. If that is not successful propaganda against any movement I don’t know what is! I sometimes think you’d have more understanding with a radical Islamic terrorist than a Creation scientist, even though the Creation scientist isn’t trying to kill you.
You said, “Two, these are the experts in the field of biology where evolution theory works — the guys who gave us the Green Revolution, the guys who excise cancers from within our bodies and devise ways to keep us healthy in other ways, the guys who track down and kill the cotton boll weevil and the imported Argentine Fire Ant. These are the people whose livlihoods [sic] depend on accurate science.”
I should thank these “Green Revolution” guys for the forest fires that California got this last year. Environmentalists will not allow us to have clean and cultivated forests and so year after year we see forest fires that cost far more to put out than it would cost to maintain our wildernesses. It’s ridiculous! Don’t get me started with the Green Revolution! Anyway…many of the principles and observations of evolutionistic scientists are correct and have led to great research! I’m not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater and revert back to the stone ages. However, the same research can be done and advancements can be made WITH the belief that God is our creator and without that belief because the data is the same. The inferences that are made with the data vary by presuppositions.
On the flipside, I believe it is dangerous to put too much faith into mankind. Look at how much scientists have changed their positions on various things over the years…all the, “We used to say such and such, but no one believes that anymore” because of observed data. The data can be mistaken (if it has been tampered with or samples collected poorly, etc), and the interpretation of that data can be mistaken. In addition, assumptions that go far beyond that data can be mistaken. So, I’m not saying all these scientists are right or wrong in this paragraph, what I’m saying is that you are placing far too much faith in fallible men and women who can make leaps of faith or start with a skewed premise (no possibility for God) to begin with.
You said, “Creationist efforts to fog up science education are working in America, and China and India are leaving us in the dust.”
You are blaming our educational problems on Creationism? As much as it would be nice to have that much influence in public schools (though positively would be a lot better), I think you give Creationists too much credit. Especially if 98% of scientists in Texas are rejecting ID as credible science! You just made the case that the vast majority of teachers and scientists are saying that Creationism shouldn’t be in the public schools and then blame the .2% for all the problems? Is that a legitimate argument?
I would say that our educational problems are more closely linked to laziness, selfishness, and a censorship of “outside the establishment” ideas than anything else.
You said, “Terrorism is dangerous even when it’s the quiet kind of terror spread by creationists, and we should treat it as the same nation-destroying stuff we would if al Quaeda did it. (I’ve always been nervous about the creationist alliance with Islamic radicals, by the way — I think neither side is up to any good.)”
This criticism is way over the top and reveals your bias is farther gone than I had thought possible. You’re accusing Creationists as being terrorists and even trying to use the common belief of God as the Creator between Islamic radicals and Evangelical Christians as proof? Ed…wow! That’s all I can say is…wow!
You’re sentiments are catching on though (repeat a lie long enough, people start believing it), and it may not be long before I am carted off to jail for passive terrorism for teaching children that God made them or saying that Jesus said He is the only way to heaven or some other homophobic thing like that. I will be the bigot, the homophobe, the un-tolerant, the propaganda machine, etc. All for saying that God is the Creator. It really rings true what Jesus said, “”If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” John 15:18. So I don’t blame you for hating me, Ed or calling me a terrorist. Jesus predicted it would happen, so it’s ok. I still love you and will not stop praying for you. I only wish that people would see Christians as dispensers of God’s message of love and redemption instead of dispensers of hate and bigotry. Paul said to speak the truth in love. So, I will speak the truth… “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” But I must seek to do it in love; otherwise your sentiments of “intellectual terrorism” will have a ring of truth to them. We can have all knowledge and know all the mysteries of the universe, but if we don’t have God’s kind of love, we are nothing (1 Corinthians 13).
You said, “New, world-changing ideas don’t come from people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts.”
If you held this to be true, then scientists would not be afraid of pursuing a logical discussion on Intelligent Design or creationism in the classroom. Are there holes? Absolutely! What scientist would be so bold as to say that they had everything figured out? But the premise of an intelligent designer is not accepted as being even a remote possibility by entrenched people who “stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts.” While there are many Christians who are misinformed about a great many things, and are almost afraid of doing the research for what they may find, some of us are like Pascal, who believe and then want to know “why” we believe and are doing research. We look at the heavens and the earth and all science as a way to get to know and understand God better instead of stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge the fact that He even exists.
I still don’t understand your perspective – if God is not our Creator, why worship Him? Why write music about Him and sing to Him? Why tell others of Him? It makes no sense at all if He is simply this foreign entity that may or may not be there.
You said, “The evidence he (Darwin) gathered led off on a different path, however. Only someone who knew the science of the time could have seen where the failure was.”
Darwin wasn’t wholly wrong either as some Christians are afraid to say. However, he took his observations way past where the evidence led into the view that we are all descended from a single ancestor. That simply is not a proven fact but a matter of presumptuous faith.
You said, “If you think there’s a problem with evolution, it behooves you to work hard to understand the theory so you can show where the error is, if it ever presents itself to you.”
You and I have gone back and forth many times on errors within evolution. You will not grant one point rarely if ever admit that you are wrong on anything. I daresay you’ve never opposed one word of Darwin or any of his disciples. You admit no weakness, no misinformation, no bias, no presupposition, no propaganda, no error…nothing. This to me is not the substance of an honest discussion but a skewed and stacked deck in favor of evolution, because if left up to reading your side of our discussions, people would get the impression that Darwin was infallible, and in addition, that by extension of being his disciple, you are then infallible. Even on C.S. Lewis you didn’t admit you were wrong, you simply said, “It appears that Lewis was a creationist.” as if you completely lost respect for the man instead of studying “why” he came to that conclusion. Usually, you simply drop any subject that you are uncomfortable with or do not have a reply. Go back and look – you have even failed to reply to the Bible’s claims of God being the creator, which you wouldn’t even give credence to. You wouldn’t even acknowledge that the Bible claims to be true! You are the one that dropped almost every discussion that we began. I know that time is a factor, and I definitely understand, but there is a pattern going on here, and it is not I who is unwilling to do research because that is what the whole point of coming and talking with you has been all about for me! I have looked at you as a teacher and have learned a LOT from you about evolution and how Darwinists look at things. You have compelled me to do a lot of research (that I don’t have time for but do it anyway). You are my manual to evolution, just as I am the only Bible many non-believers will ever see. That being said, what, in all the discussions we have had would lead me to ever desire to give up my belief in God as the Creator and espouse Darwinian evolution? Especially when you’re calling the person with whom you are discussing a terrorist. : -) What in all the discussions we’ve had have you ever been studious enough to research out the questions I’ve raised regarding when you were in gross error of misquoting the Bible? Why then do I keep giving you the courtesy of researching your beliefs when you don’t have the courtesy to have anything but a misinformed, skewed, and slanderous view of mine?
You said, “Coming up with wild guesses isn’t science. “Thinking outside the box” requires that one know what is in the box, and where the box is. Creationism doesn’t come close to thinking outside the box.”
I am not a scientist and so I will never pretend to know all the nuances of evolution. However, I DO know that people who would find any evidence leading to ID or creationism would be foolish (humanly speaking) to step forward and let their findings be found attached to their name. In one story Jesus said in Luke 16, Abraham made the point that even if a person rose again from the dead and told people the truth, they wouldn’t believe! I’ve asked atheists the question, “If God appeared to you and told you He existed, would you worship Him?” The answer is usually, “%#$* No!” So, with that type of antagonism against anything to do with God or even the possibility of a God, where are the evolutionists open to things that are outside of their world view (i.e. no God as creator. Period!)? Why would anyone be compelled to think outside the box when they will lose all credibility and future integrity with their peers? Even if God Himself came and told you face to face that He Created the heavens and the earth, I wonder if you would believe Him! With that kind of resistance, why on earth would any scientist risk his job and credibility to go against the mainstream view?
“Of course, DNA analysis is grounded in evolution theory, so you would need to understand that before you start the analysis.”
I have no problem with that. Why should I be afraid as a Christian of one plant varying greatly within its own DNA? There’s a far cry from the same Creator who gave all life DNA and same ancestor who passed on all DNA. From my perspective, DNA is a good step to showing the design that is in the world. It’s amazingly complex!
Well, I did another really long post again. My appologies. I will refrain in the future and wish you a Merry Christmas to you and yours.
LikeLike
Welcome back, Joe.
One, here in Texas creationists claim that “a lot” of scientists think there is science to be had in creationism. The percentage is not growing as they claim, but shrinking — even here in deepest, darkest Fundamentalist America.
Two, these are the experts in the field of biology where evolution theory works — the guys who gave us the Green Revolution, the guys who excise cancers from within our bodies and devise ways to keep us healthy in other ways, the guys who track down and kill the cotton boll weevil and the imported Argentine Fire Ant. These are the people whose livlihoods depend on accurate science.
Plus, they’re the people who teach our (older) children to go whip the world in inventing new stuff. Read the poll. They’re saying that teaching creationism is like shooting the toes off the school’s fastest runners before the track meet.
Sometimes one does well to listen to the experts, especially when they ask you to listen to their reasons, and not just accept their views on authority.
Why should any incompetent scientist get tenure anywhere? If someone labors in biology and believes that human babies are delivered by storks, they shouldn’t get tenure. They should be fired. Same for all other forms of creationism besides storkism.
There’s still a too-large number of people who believe the Sun orbits the Earth. Creationist efforts to fog up science education are working in America, and China and India are leaving us in the dust. As the Excellence in Education Commission noted, had a foreign nation done to us what the rising tide of educational mediocrity does, we’d call it an act of war. Terrorism is dangerous even when it’s the quiet kind of terror spread by creationists, and we should treat it as the same nation-destroying stuff we would if al Quaeda did it. (I’ve always been nervous about the creationist alliance with Islamic radicals, by the way — I think neither side is up to any good.)
You fail to understand how “outside the box” thinking works, in science. New, world-changing ideas don’t come from people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts. The great breakthroughs almost always come from someone who has studied the science as stated thoroughly, and actually found some place it doesn’t work. Darwin was a creationist, and he was thoroughly grounded in the creationism of William Paley when he set out on his mission to get the natural evidence to prove, once and for all, that the Genesis version of creation was correct. The evidence he gathered led off on a different path, however. Only someone who knew the science of the time could have seen where the failure was.
If you think there’s a problem with evolution, it behooves you to work hard to understand the theory so you can show where the error is, if it ever presents itself to you.
Coming up with wild guesses isn’t science. “Thinking outside the box” requires that one know what is in the box, and where the box is. Creationism doesn’t come close to thinking outside the box.
If you want to know how distantly you and brocolli are related, do the DNA analysis. Of course, DNA analysis is grounded in evolution theory, so you would need to understand that before you start the analysis.
Unless one works to understand the science, one will not understand it. There is no royal road to genetics, either.
LikeLike
Not to get into it too much, but what do the statistics of scientists demonstrate concerning the accuracy of a claim? Nothing. It demonstrates truly that a lot of scientists believe that Darwinian evolution should be taught in school. However, these kind of statistics do nothing to further the discussion of whether evolution is true or not, but to show how hard it would be to get tenure as a Creation believing scientist in Texas. :-)
Didn’t I remember reading that there was a high number of people who believed the Sun revolved around the earth at one point? Since a lot of people believed it, that makes it true, right? Statistics show who believes what, or how people think, not whether or not what they believe is true. One of the problems with living in a poll driven world that we do is that if polls favor one opinion, that’s the opinion that many take instead of searching for the facts, regardless of what others think or believe.
Blog threads like this go far to discouraging young students to think “outside the box” of evolution, as Darwin thought “outside the box” in his (should I capitalize “his”?) day. It puts peer pressure to remain with the majority and does not give freedom to thought, imagination, testing, etc. outside the box. I would strongly condemn that, if I were a scientist.
But to say something in reply to your arguments, what you are demonstrating is the accuracy of the claim that organic life does change, as you used the Brocolli and Mustard seed as an example. I have no problem with people getting shorter, taller, weaker, stronger, smarter, dumber, etc. There is constant change. Not many Creationists I know would have a problem with that. As we’ve gone back and forth on several times, what you are NOT demonstrating beyond just philiosophically, how my brocolli and I have the same ancestor. Sure, variety is definitely there and species adapt and change over time (within their DNA limits) but I’m not seeing the Aardvark and the Artichoke as distant relatives being a proven science.
LikeLike
Steven,
Your litany of arguments against evolution are demonstrably in error, and these errors have no place in the science classroom, especially under the guise of “strengths and weaknesses”. Any teacher who teaches as you would like (or as the Discovery Institute proposes – their “experts” are as inept as you, it would seem) is incompetent and does not deserve to keep their position. “Freedom of speech” and/or “freedom of religion” do not give a teacher any right to be incompetent in their job, nor do they prevent an employer from releasing an incompetent teacher.
“Strengths and weaknesses” is code-speak for protection of incompetent science teachers. Texas school districts do not need to be saddled with any such measures.
LikeLike
Yes–all of them.
As for all those doubting scientists, where are their research papers?
LikeLike
Mr. Barlow, your belief that God is the creator could use some thought. If, as all the evidence shows your misstatements about evolution notwithstanding, evolution is clearly evidenced by creation, then, in your view, shouldn’t we assume that is what God wants creation to demonstrate? And, that being the case, either God wants creation to demonstrate evolution because that’s what happened — God’s intention, in other words — or God wishes to deceive us about the Earth and the heavens.
Which is it? Is nature under the thumb of God, and accurate, or is nature under the thumb of God and deceitful?
Think many times before you decide.
LikeLike
Evolution is a dead theory.
There are 100 million fossils which show that animals which lived hundreds of million years ago are exactly the same as their current counterparts. This is clear evidence “against evolution.”
Also, natural selection does not have the capacity to change the genetic code on the DNA. The rabbits may run faster, and survive but they do not turn out to be other “more advanced” and “advantageous” creature because their DNA code is not effected. They die in the end along with their faster running legs. Lamarckism is already an outdated theory.
Therefore, creation is a fact, evolution could not have happened. Besides, no graduation can explain the irreducible complexity in for instance body organs. Think of the blood, if all blood cells had presumably evolved without the hemoglobin molecule inside, what use? If the stomach did not have the protective tissue to prevent destroying itself due to hydrocholoric acid, what use? If all organs were there but you could not breathe with your lungs and the oxygen was not transferred to each one of your cells, what use?
Please think once again before you decide. Evolution – really did not happen, cannot have happened – there is no evidence, no mechanism. But all findings and science indeed show that there is an anthropic principle behind the universe with incredibly fine tuned quarks in the atom, nuclear power in the nucleus of the atom, 3 billion lettered vast library with immense information in the DNA.
Who encoded the DNA?
Who made the quarks in the atom?
Who set the oxygen in the atmosphere just in the right ratio so that we are not burnt to death?
Who mixed water – soil and minerals to bring out thousands of vegetation and fruit with wonderful tastes and scents right from the dark earth?
God is the Creator of every detail that we see in this universe, and we will see the intelligence and wisdom behind each and every created thing if we look with an open eye (heart).
LikeLike
Good point, Art.
Leave it to a real, hardworking scientist to notice that.
LikeLike
“There are many scientists today with advanced science degrees from major universities that believe the flaws in Darwinian theory are so great they cannot be repaired.”
However many “many scientists” really are, they are wrong. In biology, and I daresay when it comes to simple math. Most people (even 1st graders) know that zero (the whole, entire, complete sum of positive experimental evidence against common ancestry, descent with modification, and natural selection acting upon random heritable variability) is most definitely less than thousands upon thousands (which is an underestimate of the numbers of studies that have provided positive support in favor of common ancestry, descent with modification, and natural selection acting upon random heritable variability).
0 > 10,000. Only in ID classrooms.
LikeLike
Oh, and on left-handedness, you should consult Andrew Ellington’s lecture to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. His lab did the experiments that showed how handedness is easy to explain, and no hurdle for evolution or evolution theory.
LikeLike
So much difficulty in assertion, so little time!
A few observations.
I find that statement to be a gross exaggeration. There are not really more than a dozen scientists who work in the field who think there are any “flaws” in the theory; there is no one who has proposed any competing hypothesis.
In any case, far less than 5% of biologists fit that category. It is a diminishing pool, not expanding, and scientifically, this group is dead, doing no serious work on evolution theory since about 1870.
How we got eyes can be traced via DNA, among other ways. That’s not speculative in any way, and is the highest form of empirical science. DNA provides a great deal of evidence for the evolution of eyes in humans. Typically, where we have great data that disagree with the critics of evolution, the critics ask us to disregard the data, to ignore the evidence, and to make conclusions based on erroneous assumptions.
Davies makes no statement that is not based on empirical evidence. Big Bang is thoroughly evidenced — we have the photographs, for gosh sakes (you’ve seen them, from the COBE project). Evolution is much better understood. To suggest that we should fail to recognize what we know, is foolishness.
Darwin’s theory does not cover the origins of life. Evolution occurs regardless the origins of life, whether life originated with life “being breathed into one form or many,” as Darwin related, or whether it rose spontaneously in a pool, or on a rock, or at some fumarole. This is a common bait-and-switch tactic of creationists. Again, you ask us to ignore what we know well, in order to accommodate your speculative fantasies. That’s not a good idea.
There is no such thing as a “Law of biogenesis.” We have observations that life generally arises from living things, but of course in recognizing that, we must recognize Darwin’s observation that all life we know is “descended with modifications” from its ancestors — that is, we must recognize natural selection in action. On the one hand you claim natural selection can’t occur, and then on the other you site the foundations of natural selection as evidence that natural selection doesn’t occur. I think you may need to check your facts there.
Pasteur and others provided experiments that showed rather complex, advanced life does not result spontaneously: Mice do not arise from piles of rags or heaps of straw. Pasteur’s conclusions do not apply to microscopic and submicroscopic life.
Miller and Urey, and countless others, have demonstrated that in early Earth conditions however hypothesized, the chief building block chemicals of life arise spontaneously. Moreover, our advanced observatories have confirmed the existence of these chemicals throughout the universe. Fox demonstrated that cellular structures arise spontaneously, and that they are virtually indistinguishable from modern cells — they move, consume nutrients, grow and reproduce. RNA arises spontaneously. The only thing we have not seen occur is RNA turn into DNA inside a protocell. If you’re betting that cannot occur, you’re putting God in an awfully small box that may be slated for destruction.
Evolution has been observed in the wild and in the lab, on the other hand. The point should not be missed: Abiogenesis is interesting, but it is not a part of evolution theory. Evolution’s proofs are manifest and manifold. Regardless how life started, evolution occurs. (See Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time.)
The Ostrichians make this claim often, but that’s wrong. Eldredge and Gould did not claim that fossils don’t show evolution — check out Eldredge’s book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism for example, in which he points to his collection of more than 2,000 trilobytes showing the beasties’ evolution over 300 million years, as Darwin noted it (and leaving a clear record of the transitions, slow and fast). You misstate what Gould and Eldredge said (and I suspect you’ve never read either of them, nor their papers together –am I right? How could you read their defenses of evolution and get so wrong what they said?).
Eldredge and Gould argued that punctuated equilibria would explain what the fossil record shows, not what it doesn’t show. Fossils show long periods of slow transitions from one species to two or three more, long periods of stasis punctuated by quick periods of change, and long periods of slow change to one new species. In all three cases, Darwin was right, and Gould and Eldredge explicitly acknowledge that and give Darwin credit.
Do you think Darwin wrote that? I challenge you to quote him saying so.
In Origin of Species he wrote exactly the opposite. He said he could not imagine that the fossil record could get much more complete than it was in 1859, at which time he found it rather clearly demonstrated evolution.
Darwin was wrong: We have a lot more fossils now, not a single one of which contradicts his claims. We have fossils that show the evolution of fish into amphibians and reptiles, reptiles into mammals, and the diversification of mammals. We have more than 15 species showing the evolution of modern humans from the last common ancestor we shared with any of the other great apes.
If you state Darwin exactly backwards, excuse me for doubting the veracity of your other claims.
I think you do injustice to a good and careful scientist who laid out a case that you have not bothered to read for yourself.
Are there life forms in transition today? Absolutely. Almost every product in the produce and meat sections of your supermarket are products of very recent evolution. Much of what we eat today did not exist 200 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. We know the evolutionary history of these foods very well. Do you seriously think we’d forget that broccoli is descended from mustard? There’s a parable about mustards you should read sometime.
Please keep posting here. At least it keeps you away from the Texas State Board of Education hearings.
LikeLike
I believe there are many flaws in most people’s thinking today about this issue. They do not separate Darwinian theory from science. There are many scientists today with advanced science degrees from major universities that believe the flaws in Darwinian theory are so great they cannot be repaired. To equate this theory with science I believe is to not only dishonor those who take opposing views in the scientific field today, but also many of the founders of the fields of science who did not accept Darwinian theory. Sir Francis Bacon who gave us the scientific method rejected Darwinian theory, as did most of the founders of the different fields of science. There exist today, pro-Darwinian scientists, and anti-Darwinian scientists. Many are equating someone’s interpretation of the evidence as science, and someone else’s interpretation of the same evidence as not being science. There needs to be a separation made between what is known, and what is believed.
For example: what an eye is and how it operates is pure science. How we got an eye is speculative at best and historical in nature and does not deserve to be considered empirical observable science. This and other beliefs about how we got an eye need to be placed in a different category. Our textbooks should have empirical, observable, and experimental science in one section; and historical beliefs about how we may have gotten an eye in another section. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. There are things in our textbooks today which have been proven wrong, some over 100 years ago, and they are still in our textbooks.
Also, many have accepted Darwinian theory for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. I could give you many quotes from pro-Darwinians as to why they hold to this theory, because of what they percieve to be the only alternative.
It is stated that science limits itself to natural causes. Why should science be limited to only a naturalistic viewpoint? Scientists in the past and present have not always done so. Consider this quote: “(The Big Bang) represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle-transcending physical principles… ” Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 161.
The theory accepted by pro-Darwinians for the natural explanation of the existence of the universe violates the first law of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, and the law of the conservation of angular momentum, yet it is still accepted. Whose supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe shall we accept as being scientific? You cannot have an explosion without energy or matter, that is unscientific.
How about the beginning of life? Darwinian scientists teach abiogenesis, but the Law of Biogenesis still exists. Some textbooks try to get around this by saying: “But the law of biogenesis doesn’t really answer the question where life came from.” That is not correct. It does partially answer the question, it didn’t come from non-life. Pasteur, Redi, Spalanzani and others already proved that wrong, that’s why we have the law of biogenesis. Life does not form through natural processes from non-life. That has never been observed, nor has it been produced in the laboratory. It is unscientific. For that to happen would take something supernatural to occur.
All life consists of left-handed amino acids only. If you start with all left-handed amino acids it starts to revert to about a half-right, half-left mixture. When something dies it starts reverting to half right and half left. Yet life requires all left-handed amino acids. That is against nature. Life is a supernatural event.
What are the mechanisms for evolution? Mutations and natural selection. Almost all mutations are harmful and produce a net loss in genetic information over time. Darwinian theory requires a net gain in genetic information over time. Mutations are almost always the least likely to survive. Natural selection almost always prevents change and will weed out almost all mutations. What happens naturally is that the genetic load (defects) is getting greater, the gene pool of information is getting smaller. Yet Darwinian theory requires something that goes against nature. Would it not then be supernatural?
The Darwinians claim the fossil record proves evolution happened, it actually proves it didn’t. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge admitted that. Why do you think they came up with the theory of “punctuated equilibrium?” Because they admitted there was no evidence of slow change in the fossil record. They claimed that proved evolution happened quickly and left no fossil evidence behind. Darwin said future discoveries should contain millions of fossils clearly in transition. In fact, he said the absense of these would falsify his theory. I think he underestimated the enginuity of his followers, and the gullibility of the general public.
Dr. Werner Gitt, a German information scientist, developed scientific laws concerning information. I just want to mention five things briefly. All information must have four things or it is not information: a sender, a receiver, an information code, an agreement between the sender and the receiver concerning the code. This is the observable evidence for every form of information known to man. Pro-Darwinians agree except when it comes to the most complex form of information, human DNA. With that they insist there was no sender. It somehow originated from matter and energy. Matter and energy are material entities. Reason, conscience, information, etc are examples of non-material entities. It is scientifically impossible for a non-material entity to have its origin from a material source.
Are there any life forms clearly in transition today? No. Is there fossil evidence it happened in the past? No. If someone were to beam in the DNA from one human being from outer space, the scientists at SETI would go nuts. That would be absolute proof there is intelligence out there. It would actually be better proof there is not a lot of intelligence on this planet.
In Search of the Truth,
Dr. A.E. Edgeworth
4027 S. Hemlock Ln.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
aedgeworth@comcast.net
LikeLike
Why is this still an issue? I thought it was settled 20 years ago and 150 years too late. Also, in its current incarnation, Intelligent design is really just a flawed evolutionary theory, as part of the constant retrenchment of the Creationist. These are the same people who don’t believe that coitus is involved in childbirth because it clashes with the Stork “theory.”
LikeLike
Island seems to believe that Creationism version 6.2 (“teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution”) is a sincere desire on the part of Creationists to improve the quality of science curricula. Does Island also believe, as does the Creationist dentist, that there are 2 systems of science?
Unfortunately, those Texas scientists are just another elite–part of the “intelligent and educated segment of society.”
LikeLike
THE BIBLE teaches evolution first and only totally correct.The serpent/caveman is from evolution.Yet has no link to Adam.However he is the father of Cain.That is the missing link.His family tree is portrayed in Genesis chapter four.Adams family tree is portrayed in Genesis chapter five.These two seperate and distinct gene-pools crossed in Genesis chapter six.Again this is the missing link.
LikeLike
In a groundbreaking poll released today by the Texas Freedom Network, 98% of Texas scientists told the Texas State Board of Education to quit trying to inject religion into public school science classes under the guise of intelligent design.
So Texas scientists are just a big a bunch of liars as the creationists.
What a surprise.
LikeLike