One of my favorite examples of evolution and how we can see it in living things today: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, linking larynx to brain, a few inches away — but because of evolutionary developments, instead dropping from the brain all the way down the neck to the heart, and then back up to the larynx. In giraffes the nerve can be as much as 15 feet long, to make a connection a few inches away. Richard Dawkins explains:
All mammals have the nerve, and as a result of our fishy ancestry, in all mammals, the nerve goes down the neck, through a heart blood vessel loop, and back up. In fish, of course, the distance is shorter — fish have no necks.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Pharyngula’s Sciblogs site.
Yes, the laryngeal nerve is sometimes called the vagus nerve, because it originates off of the vagus nerve.
Giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, easily explained by evolution; paints picture of an evil, joker designer otherwise.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Dan writes:
As dumb as you think that is, I think it’s even dumber to believe that man evolved from an amoeba.
And yet the evidence is on the side of the amoeba.
Creationism has no such evidence. In fact..it has no evidence at all. That’s the difference between science and faith.
But go ahead…keep on believing that God is a sociopathic liar all you want. I’m sure He won’t be pissy with you for doubting Him whatsoever…
LikeLike
Ed I just have to say that I absolutely love how Dan has convinced himself that he knows more about God and Christianity with regards to the theory of evolution than the last four Popes.
LikeLike
Now you know where I stand, and why.
Should I read anything into your not answering any of my responses? I answered “no,” and said why that was correct, and offered a smattering of evidence. Now you say it was pointless — but it’s only pointless if I erred.
At least I smoked out more detail on your non-logical rejections of evolution.
LikeLike
But I don’t think the system occurred by chance. It evolved.
Until you understand that chemistry and physics is not chance, and that neither is evolution chance, you won’t understand how evolution is thought to work — and you’ll always be sniping at a straw man.
Or, you’ll be contributing to the rapid obsolescence of DDT or the latest cure, which evolution constantly works to work around.
LikeLike
It won’t change any of the evidence for evolution, nor any of the evidence against creationism. At least, not if God has the characteristics attributed by Christians, it won’t change the evidence.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
I have a proposal for you. Tonight, you pray and ask God to speak to your heart and let you know where you stand on this matter… is it true… I’ll do the same.
When I pray to God I pray to God for important stuff. You know…peace, prosperity, understanding, the defeat of ignorance, Minnesota’s winter deciding to confine itself from December 20th to the day after New Years, the health and wellbeing of my family…all 300+ of them, Israel and the surrounding Arab countries knocking off their mutual asshattery…Felicia Day showing up on my doorstep, the death of the Republican party and the so called “Christian right.” You know…important stuff. Me and God are fine on where I stand with regards to evolution. Oh and by the way…I decide where I stand on evolution. I’m quite capable of thinking for myself unlike some I could name.
God used evolution as a means to an end. Not my fault that your faith in God is so pathetically weak that you can’t accept that.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
but many high-strung, and obviously trigger happy evolutionist numb-skulls think it does
And yet curiously I have yet to hear/see of a single “evolutionist” thinking that the theory of evolution is responsible for light, the stars, water and the elements.
For that matter I have yet to hear of an “evolutionist” be trigger happy or a numbskull.
Now I’ve heard/seen plenty of “anti-evolutionists” be trigger happy and numbskulls. Perhaps you’re getting the two groups confused?
LikeLike
Oh and let me buy you a clue here, Dan. At no point does the theory of evolution, or any other part of science, say that God didn’t have a hand in things.
Of course science doesn’t say that God did have a hand in things either. When it comes to questions of faith, science leaves that up to the spiritual beliefs, if any, of the person in question. In other words science stays neutral.
So the question I have is why do you feel so compelled to defend God against the theory of evolution when the theory of evolution says nothing about God one way or the other?
LikeLike
Oh and Dan if you were wondering…my operating motto tends to be: I suffer fools for short periods of time but once that short period of time is up they’re going to be told they’re fools.
Let me know when you want to be something other then a fool and a fake Christian and then I’ll treat you more nicely. Until then both your stupidity and your fake faith is insulting me.
Oh and you really shouldn’t accuse others of being narrow minded since you’re incredibily narrow minded.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
Hey wanted to let you know that your words “twit” “half-wit”, “stupid”, etc. in your context are attempting to insult me, but that ain’t gonna happen dude. I don’t have any care what someon thinks/says who’m I dis-respect. Never have, never will.
Well at least you can figure out I was insulting you. There’s hope for you yet.
As for this bit:
Now, that said, curious why you’re so hot under the collar. Hmmm… could it be I hit a nerve. That’s the one advantage of good-ole honest truth… it always has the bite of reality on its side.
Nope. You didn’t hit a nerve. Well other then the one that I have that makes me pissy with people who are being intentionally stupid. But nothing you said is even close to being the truth.
And again, Dan, I’m Christian. Have been all my life. I don’t have a problem in crediting God for what God did..that would be you actually that has that problem. You’re the one that doesn’t want to credit God for doing what He did how He did it. You want to constrain God into doing what He did only how you say He did it.
You’re turning God into a puppet.
Oh and by the way..pretty much every atheist I’ve known has been far more rational and far more intelligent then you.
LikeLike
I have a proposal for you. Tonight, you pray and ask God to speak to your heart and let you know where you stand on this matter… is it true… I’ll do the same.
Let’s see, I asked God to speak to my heart on a daily basis for some 20 years or so. Since one definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, I eventually wised up and quit wasting my time.
I don’t have any objections to you doing it for me, though. There’s no way your prayers can do me harm, and if there’s actually a God maybe they’ll do some good. Go for it, with my blessing.
LikeLike
James,
I have a proposal for you. Tonight, you pray and ask God to speak to your heart and let you know where you stand on this matter… is it true… I’ll do the same.
Let’s see what happens.
Hmmm.
LikeLike
James Says: Nice try, but it seems several people here took your question as the question of a dunce. That suggests the mistake was in your writing, not in the reading.
No James, this blog is for people who want to get together and celebrate a lie… I’m not alone at all in the world dude, but I am in here, and honestly, I like it that way!
LikeLike
James:
Hey wanted to let you know that your words “twit” “half-wit”, “stupid”, etc. in your context are attempting to insult me, but that ain’t gonna happen dude. I don’t have any care what someon thinks/says who’m I dis-respect. Never have, never will.
Now, that said, curious why you’re so hot under the collar. Hmmm… could it be I hit a nerve. That’s the one advantage of good-ole honest truth… it always has the bite of reality on its side.
Or is this a Brit/American thing? That’s a long standing jealousy.
LikeLike
Ediacaran:
Sorry if I gave you the impression I wrote any of that… Gimme a break… you really thought I was “plagiarizing”. Goodness… I didn’t bother to give the other reasons cause I realized it was too big of a post and rude.
By the way, all of the research we do, and all of the resons you give are siting everything else you’ve learned… same thing… plagarizing is when you attempt to assign it to yourself as the author pal, not quoting someone. For your benefit, I’ll be sure to include the site next time!
LikeLike
Ed,
You wasted your time answering my question about what evolution created, you missed my point altogether.
The obvious answer is “no” to all of these. I didn’t know where you stood, because some that are so emphatic like you beleive so…
As dumb as you think that is, I think it’s even dumber to believe that man evolved from an amoeba.
LikeLike
Wow Ed, you narrow minded person!
You compared the “Speck of Dirt” to the Amoeba??? Really???
Dude, get a grip. The Speck of Dirt you refer to is that God Created man with his own hands from clay/dirt. That has nothing at all to do with God creating some kind of automatic system, sitting back, and being excited to see what might develop… Hey cool… a MAN… looks just like me… how cool is that.
Hahaha…. really Ed, I’m so sorry, but I’m sincerely here laughing. It’s just so foolish. Honestly.
LikeLike
if you tell me that you see things that have been created and tell me that you believe that the outcome is from a system put in place and that it was random
There you go again, falsely claiming evolution is about randomness. How can you expect anyone to treat you respectfully when you continue to perpetuate a lie?
In natural selection the mutations are random, but the selection and retention of them is not random at all. If my DNA had a mutation that prevented the air passage in my throat from connecting with my lung, it would be nonrandomly selected against, because it would kill me upon birth. If I had a mutation that increased the ability of my sperm to penetrate the egg, it would most likely be non-randomly selected for, because it would increase the odds that I have offspring.
That evolution is a “random” process is a falsehood, an untruth. If you have to resort to misrepresenting evolutionary theory, who can take you seriously?
Despite how many times we’ve pointed out your falsehoods, you continue to present lie after lie. You know that they call that kind of person in my neck of the woods, Dan? A liar. You, sir, are a liar.
LikeLike
Ed,
I so appreciate your description of coming from one cell. Yes, it’s TRULY amazing, but even more astonishing… a UNIVERSE more astonishing.. is the fact that you think that the system that can develop a human from a sperm and egg came by chances and survival, and mutations over time. Oh my goodness, every time I write it I’m just BLASTED by how blind that is Ed. When you see it one day, you will be amazed at what an odd place you stand in.
Honestly, I don’t know what’s blinded you, I better not say, ’cause that’d put me in the judgement seat, which I don’t belong in.
LikeLike
James,
You mentioned pointing to a tree and saying God made it, doesn’t make it a fact…
What is truth, huh? Well truth is what you see that you did not create. Truth is that little tinge inside that knows that God really did create and design every little thing you see specifically for you to enjoy… He made decisions to make things that please you, intrigue you…
James, you claim to be a follower, and I think that’s awesome that you are, but I say I question your intimacy with the creator.. if you knew him closely, you’d have all the proof you need. You wouldn’t be blinded by your own mind. But you don’t.
LikeLike
And NO, the theory of evolution does not try to explain the basic elements, but many high-strung, and obviously trigger happy evolutionist numb-skulls think it does
You’re a liar. Name some. Give us links. I’ve never met even one person who knew anything about evolution who believed that, much less “many” of them. I challenge you to give me a link to one evolutionary theorist who thinks evolution can explain the origin of light or the elements. I’ll contribute $100 to your church or whatever charity you favor if you can show me a biologist who believes in evolution and makes such a claim. And I’m serious about that. You don’t even have to put up any money; all you have to do is show me someone I don’t believe exists.
BTW Blatent Stupidity might be indicated by posting with the name James when another James is already posting :)
Only if there are readers too dumb to distinguish between a James Hanley and a James Kessler.
LikeLike
JAMES: Regarding my education about Genesis.
You are so wrong, you read the Word of God with blinders on. It is so clear that it explains not HOW.. I agree, but it does show his ROLE in it. You need to see that he made active decisions over time. Dude, you simply can’t deny it… well you can, if you’re not being honest with yourself. James, please be sincere at least with yourself. I know when you’re alone, in bed, at night, quiet… you know there’s truth in the fact that God had a bigger role in creation than simply putting in place a system and sitting back and watching.
James, if you tell me that you see things that have been created and tell me that you believe that the outcome is from a system put in place and that it was random, yet god knew or some kind of junk like that, as opposed to him making decisions and creating, then brother, you don’t know God, and you’re deceived and have even tricked yourself!
Woa.
LikeLike
Dan,
Nice try, but it seems several people here took your question as the question of a dunce. That suggests the mistake was in your writing, not in the reading.
As to not making assumptions…you say it’s a bad idea, but you obviously were making the assumption that at least one of the James’s here was stupid enough to think evolution had something to do with the origin of light and matter. It doesn’t really matter which one of us you were talking to; it was a pretty silly question in either case.
But it seems clear to me that you’re not interested in serious debate. Obviously you were either asking a stupid question and are now backpeddling because you got caught, or you were trying to play “gotcha.” That’s bad form in either case.
To go back to what I said earlier, you should read what evolutionary theorists actually argue, instead of just reading what creationists say about them. Until you do, you’re not engaging in honest debate because you won’t actually engage with the real arguments of evolution. I’d say that’s pretty cowardly of you, as well as dishonest.
LikeLike
James:
You asked if I was blatently stupid… Ha, think about that question, how would I be able to tell you… if I was stupid… if I was blatent or not, wouldn’t that be the judgement of the viewer (chuckling here).
And NO, the theory of evolution does not try to explain the basic elements, but many high-strung, and obviously trigger happy evolutionist numb-skulls think it does, sorry if asking the question offended you (obviously did), but again, from your former posts, I questions if you were one of those/not. The fact is, that’s the impression you leave.
Regarding the cob-web bit. Sorry James, some day, you will be shown the truth, and will know, and that’s cool. I have no problem with you believing such a silly thing, some day you’ll know. Seriously, if we both make it to the same destination in eternity, let’s hook up and have a chat, shall we?
BTW Blatent Stupidity might be indicated by posting with the name James when another James is already posting :)
LikeLike
James:
Oh my… what a dunce response to my questions James… (sorry, but true). I was asking the question of YOU because I don’t know you from a hole in the wall and was curious if you felt, as some do, that even the elemental structures exist to to some kind of random re-organization of mass. Might want to do your homework there pal before making assumptions about a simple question. Friendly reminder that when people type back and forth, you can’t make assumptions and implications into what they write. You must take it at face value.
Also, I do not roll my eyes when a so-called atheist (which I do not believe exist in reality), questions my beliefs. I’m excited by it, and am axious to talk about it. Again, I asked those questions to see where you stand because honestly you don’t impress me as a reasonable enough person to not beleive even the elements emerged out of random interaction.
BTW bubbuh, you’re dead wrong about what I’ve written FYI.
‘Gday
LikeLike
I was being diplomatic :P
LikeLike
If you have to either prove that you’re a complete idiot or that you’re a sociopathic liar
Now, now, James, let’s be fair. He could be both, you know.
LikeLike
To quote:
So Evolutionists who believe all of creation came through evolution:
First off, twit, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain how life started. That would be the theory of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution explains what happened after life started.
Would you like to recognize the difference or does being an ignorant halfwit serve your purposes better?
As for the following folderol of yours:
Did evolution create light?
Did evolution create water?
Did evolution create the elements?
Unless you’re claiming that light (stars), water, and the elements are living breathing living organisms what do you think you’re proving
I mean other then you may be one of the world’s stupidest and/or dishonest people that is?
The theory of evolution describes a biological process. The theory of evolution does not apply to the creation of the stars, of water or of the elements. And anyone, like you, who claims different is the world’s biggest prat.
If you have to either prove that you’re a complete idiot or that you’re a sociopathic liar in order to defend your irrational hatred of the theory of evolution then really…you should just do yourself a favor and shut up.
LikeLike
To quote:
with Hitler (despite his being a creationist) and other dictators.
Hitler also claimed to be a Christian and what he was doing, especially to the Jews, was what God wanted and in the defense of Christianity.
LikeLike
For those who want to see from where Dan likely plagiarized his “Reason Number 1” cut-and-paste nonsense (is plagiarism acceptable for a Scout Leader or a Boy Scout?), see http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
It pretty much starts out like a Chick Tract, goes through a litany of creationist canards (like the silliness of no “positive” mutations, as previously noted) and toward the end has the required creationist bearing-of-false-witness (Boy Scout ethics?) with out-of-context quotes from scientists. It ends with attempts to associate evolution with Hitler (despite his being a creationist) and other dictators.
Godwin’s Law is confirmed yet again.
LikeLike
Creation came from Big Bang. Nobel went to Wilson and Penzias, who found the “proof” in the echo radiation predicted by Alpher and Gamow. The COBE project has photos from shortly after the birth (short in cosmic time).
Most people who understand evolution also understand a bit about Big Bang. They are not the same process.
I find creationists often confuse the process, but maliciously, not out of naive ignorance.
Usually a physical reaction in a star, or a chemical reaction like a flame of a fire. Physics or chemistry, not biology.
Are you naively confused, or did you know that and just want to muddy the discussion waters?
Hydrogen and oxygen easily combust to create water. It’s a simple chemical reaction, happens 100% of the time when the two elements are combusted. Chemistry, not biology.
When the universe cooled enough for particles to exist, the particles bonded into electrons, protons and neutrons, which bonded into hydrogen atoms. Gravity pulled hydrogen clumps together more tightly, creating fusion, which produces helium — and heavier elements when the reactor goes a bit awry, such as just prior to a star going nova. Carbon is created in stars going nova a few seconds or minutes before the big explosion. We are carbon-based life forms — all of our carbon came from stars that died, probably billions of years ago. Most other elemental changes occur in some sort of natural reactor, usually a fusion reactor like a star (but there are instances of natural fission reactors on Earth, and so it is probable some of those exist elsewhere, too.)
Mostly physics, no biology.
What is the sky? Our planet was created by gravity, mostly from the castoffs of other planetoids and stars from billions of years earlier. The atmosphere came from those castoffs and wandering asteroids, and the gases were trapped by gravity. Again, mostly physics — some chemistry — makes up what we call the sky.
An interesting question is, why do we perceive it as sky? Physics, optical physics, can answer a lot of that. Neurological science can answer a lot of the rest.
Big Bang. Once again, we have the photos.
Is your god squeezed out by operations of physics and chemistry? Do you understand the difference between a physical phenomenon, a chemical change, and biology?
Are you saying God cannot operate according to the physical and chemical laws of the universe? Are you saying God does not use the physical and chemical laws of the universe? Or are you saying God lied about creation?
Curious why you’re curious about this rather simple, well-explained processes.
LikeLike
According to Christian theology, great things come from humble origins. The messiah is believed to have been born in the dirt, among the spit and slime of the sheep and cattle.
Speck of dirt? All Christians are proud to claim such a heritage.
Amoeba? A motilized speck of dirt. All Christians should be proud to claim such a heritage.
LikeLike
You come from one cell, surely you know that. In about 280 days, you grew from one single cell, a fertilized egg, to a few billion cells with 206 bones, precursors of two sets of teeth, working eyes, working ears, a fantastic circulatory system and an unparalelled mobility system.
Nine months, one cell to human.
What part don’t you believe? What part could possibly be more fantastic than the development of a human fetus, which you certainly have experienced yourself?
LikeLike
What would be “enough proof?” Where are you looking?
LikeLike
Dan writes:
ames,
Wow, I’m so sorry. I am not trying to offend you, but I can honestly say, that you are truly naive, and frankly blind if you honestly think everything is here, working as it is, with no greater power pulling it all together.
~~~~~
I’m Christian, have been all my life, Dan. Would you like to apologize for your stupid assumption? Or is that too much to expect out of you?
Oh and by the way..this indeed is a statement of faith: anyone who has witness the birth of their child, or looked into the micro-systems within our own bodies, or gazed into the vast universe is simply foolish to not recognize God in it.
The second you point out a window at a tree and say “God did that” you are making a statement of faith. Do you have any evidence that God or a higher power had a hand in it? No…it’s what you believe and what you believe may be valid for you but that doesn’t make it established fact.
LikeLike
Creationists have a bad habit of treating God like Howdy Doody.
LikeLike
You’d rather come from a speck of dirt?
James,
Good point. As a former Christian, my guess is that the answer would be to shift focus, and to emphasize that it’s not the “dirt” that was special, but the breath of life God breathed into his golem, which gave it consciousness and spirit (the soul). And that’s a fair response, because it’s sincere.
But that line of argument, while fair and legitimate, won’t support an anti-amoeba stance, because from a Christian perspective, an omnipotent God could clearly have breathed that breath of life into his creation anywhere along the way. So an origin in an amoeba can’t, theologically, be any more disturbing than an origin in a speck of dirt, or vice versa. To denigrate either as a possible origin is to place limits on the omnipotent God.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
Cool, so I come from amoeba after all, how exciting.
You’d rather come from a speck of dirt?
LikeLike
Dan, just for your education, the story of Genesis says why God did what He did. It makes no attempt to explain when or how.
Creationism at its basic says that God is the universe’s biggest sociopathic liar. That He created life but how life indicates it came about is a lie. That a star that is 400 million light years away from earth (and ergo the light we see from that star tonight took 400 million years to get here) is a lie because it couldn’t have possibly existed 400 million years ago because there was no 400 million years ago because the earth and the universe along with it is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old. That the light from that star is literally a lie.
Creationism is no more an alternative “theory” to evolution then it is to the Big Bang or any other scientific theory. Creationism is an heretical bastard version of the story of Creation from the Bible….an allegory created by ancient people who didn’t have the level of knowledge that we do now. Simply put Genesis was never meant to be taken literally.
If you and your fellow Creationists constantly have to jump through made up hoop after made up hoop…if you constantly have to make claims that boils down to God lying then your “belief” simply isn’t worth having. And if you constantly have to spout ignorant bulls— about evolution then that proves you have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about. That when it comes to evolution you have the knowledge of a 4 year old.
When it comes to the theory of evolution you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Go educate yourself.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
So Evolutionists who believe all of creation came through evolution:
Did evolution create light?
Did evolution create water?
Did evolution create the elements?
The sky?
The Universe?
~~~~
Are you this blatantly stupid, Dan? First off, evolution is not a religion nor is it a religious belief. Evolution explains one biological process. Oh and just so you know the scientific theory for how life started isn’t evolution…it’s the theory of abiogenesis. As for light..that would be the big bang.
Despite your delusion to the contrary and your dimwitted strawman argument, the theory of evoloution does not attempt to explain how everything was created.
Oh and other James you’re quite correct. Creationists have an incredibily weak faith in God and treat God as a puppet dancing on strings they control…that God could only have done things how they say.
If God did anything then God did it according to what the world and the rest of the universe indicates.
Dan writes: I AM NOT a Bible literalist. You are a pre-judgemental person, with a cob-web filled mind
Oh the irony of that statement. You are talking like a Creationist, Dan. 99.99999999% of all Creationists claim to be “bible literalists.” as for “cob-web filled mind” and “narrow minded” then you should have no problem in shaking the cobwebs from your mind that made you spout the stupid statement I quoted at the top. Nor should you have any problem, on paragon of open mindedness, of granting God the ability, if He so chose, to have used evolution as a means to an end.
LikeLike
Dan,
Evolution is about development and change in living organisms–it’s not about all of creation. Light, water, elements…you need to talk to physicists about that. Biologists don’t study those things; they study living organisms. Water doesn’t evolve–H2O is always H20. So evolution has exactly nothing to do with light, water, the elements, etc. If you want us to believe you are educated about evolutionary theory, how could you make such an elementary error? The level of wrongness in your question is equivalent to someone asking why football players wear ice skates.
I imagine you roll your eyes when an atheist who has never studied Christianity criticizes it, right? Well, here you’re doing what they do. You’ve made such a fundamental, basic, error, that you’ve demonstrated that you have never made any remotely serious attempt to study what evolutionary theory is–and yet you think you have enough information about it to criticize it! That’s why we are rolling our eyes at you.
I imagine you have read creationist criticisms of evolutionary theory, but that’s not the same as reading what evolutionary theorists say. It’s like reading atheist critiques of Christianity without reading what Christians have to say about their faith, or reading only what liberals say about Republicans, and so on. You’re not going to get the whole story that way, so it’s fundamentally wrong to think that you have enough knowledge to sustain an accurate critique until you’ve read something directly from those you’re critiquing.
LikeLike
So Evolutionists who believe all of creation came through evolution:
Did evolution create light?
Did evolution create water?
Did evolution create the elements?
The sky?
The Universe?
Curious where you’re at with that.
LikeLike
Hey Ed,
Seems you live here. That’s the problem with your half-cocked posts. You’re day and night posting about all sorts of subjects, so it leaves you no time to really read what’s going on, just blast it out there, that’s the plan!
My point about Genesis (because obviously you missed it), was that no matter how literal one feels Genesis is, that if you claim that the Bible is the word of God, and that you believe it, that there are certain elements that can’t be denied… If you believe it completely literal or not. For instance, the fact that what was written in Genesis shows a Creator who is making active decisions along the way… this flies in the face of the theory that God used a process eons ago to do his work for him. How does it make sense that according to the scriptures that God Saw that man needed woman… to he decided to create a woman… A decision made AFTER the process started? Hmmm… interesting isn’t it Ed?
Thank you very much for mentioning Job. What an awesome indication of how involved God is… indeed! Do you see in there how directly involved his is in every aspect of creation. Ed, please tell me you can see this and aren’t blinded by your bias…. God is completely immersed in His creation, and controls it, and is in charge of it all. Nature is not a process he set and left to run itself. That’s so against everything we see in the Scriptures.
About me taking offense. I am not…. are you?
About me studying evolution…. my whole life, just like you.
LikeLike
Ediacaran,
About “Milano A-I apolipoprotein mutation”, I don’t remember claiming there are no mutations. Why the heck to you thing we have all sorts of anomalies, of COURSE we do! This doesn’t prove the theory of evolution of mankind from a single cell.
Regarding “Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Trial”, yes, a sad case of foolishness winning out over reason. Happens all the time brother, look around you, it’s the reality of battle we live in.
Regarding your statement of BSA allowing people like me access to the BSA…. Wow, you are steeped in hatred my friend. Look at yourself. Because I argue your theory (and you are in a minority), I shouldn’t be allowed to be a Scout leader. Wow. That’s all I can say.
LikeLike
James,
Regarding your last statement about nature appreciation, scouts, etc..
I don’t think it’s of any concern of God if you believe that he used a process that us humans call “Evolution” to take an amoeba to a man, or if I believe he did not.
But I do believe it matters if we are drawn near to Him or not. I believe us knowing Him closely, drawing near to him through our lives is very important to him.
My believing what I see in scriptures as a clear depiction of a creator, who put this all together with his spoken words, and his hands, and his decisions along the way. Deciding to create things because he saw needs along the way, etc. This helps me to know a caring, loving God, who created these things for us.
For many, evolution leads them away from God. To a place where so-called “Nature”, takes it’s own course. Many reject the notion of a creator at all. Some, like you seem to theorize that they’ve discovered a secret called evolution that is Gods secret way of creating everything… he didn’t make the Giraffe for it’s beauty, or for how funny it looks, but it evolved by chance due to a process he designed. To me James, this down-plays God and his active, caring, loving role in our creation.
Unlike how you falsely judged me… my faith would not be shaken if I were to find out that in truth evolution was the process he used. Might be a bit surprised, but it would not change my faith.
Some day we will know. Hope to see you after this life and we can talk about it.
I do caution you though, as an outside observer. You’ve taken it way too far when you start judging those who don’t subscribe to a theory that you and less than half of other do, are “sinning”…. goodness.
LikeLike
James,
Regarding your “lead to the path of sin” statement… and backing it…
How silly, for you to try to turn an argument as to the truth of a theory into “sin”.
Wow… I’m totally honest here when I say that’s one of the silliest things I’ve heard. (sorry, but true).
LikeLike
James,
Regarding your response to my “REASON 1” Posting…
You’re wrong, I’ve read theories on the evolution of man from an amoeba over and over for years. #1, I don’t see enough proof. For living things evolving over time, definitely. For this process being the method from which we, as humans are today, the proof is not strong enough to me… by far. #2, God gave every man the ability to reason simple truth, and to know it. The “smart” man, the “simple” man.. just the same. You’ve seen it a million times, the simple reasoning of a simple man yields truth far beyond one who has spent his life intellectualizing. To quote the scriptures “The foolishness of God is wiser than man, and the weakness of God is stronger than man”. In our highest quest for knowledge and understanding, we basically know nothing. This is where we rely on our ability to simply reason. You look at the complexities of who we are physically, emotionally, spiritually, and any dummy can see that this did not come from a process of chances… Seriously man. #3, Faith. God gave us his word to inspire our Faith and Trust in him. He describes our creation as something he was directly involved with step by step. This does not go along with the evolutionary process.
My guess is you have no children.. But I don’t know. Most folks who have children, and have experienced watching a birth, see God clearly in it. And I mean an active, living, involved God, not one who set some process in place eons ago, and sat back and watched.
The final, and most important, is the “knowing” one has when the Spirit of God is living in them and bears witness to the truth. There’s nothing to argue there… you either understand and know this or you don’t.
LikeLike
Gee, Dan, that’s the Genesis story. Not quite plagiarism, but enough of the same words to make it clear that’s where you’re going.
God also took an active role in the creation story related in the Book of Job. Of course, it’s a much different story — no Adam, no Eve, no six days of creation; instead, a monster and a harrowing fight to see who rules Earth.
But, since you don’t take the Bible literally, I suppose there’s nothing to that story, either.
And, if you don’t take the Bible literally, what’s your beef with evolution? Darwin was always careful not to offend the church authorities, or his wife — why do you take offense?
Have you ever seriously studied evolution theory anywhere, Dan?
LikeLike
Wow, lot’s of posting while I was gone :)
James, You said I repeated the Genesis Story, and assumed it must be Scientific fact. I say, that’s not true. If you re-read my post I said (to quote myself) “God took a very pointed, and active role in the creation of the world we know ant alll that is in it. He made decisions, set things into motion, breathed into man… and then saw that a woman was needed…. etc.”. James, I never once repeated the Genesis story, please bother reading my words, or this is a COMPLETE waste of time. How stinkin irritating. I was pointing out not what you ASSUMED I was saying (but didn’t)… which is “I take it literally”… what I said was that God took an active role according to the picture that was painted there. Seriously, it’s like talking to a brick wall, that can only respond to what it thinks it’s going to hear. Eggads.
I AM NOT a Bible literalist. You are a pre-judgemental person, with a cob-web filled mind. My goodness you are starke in your view, and very close minded.
You spend quite some time judging my faith, which is pretty interesting. I would never judge the faith of any man. Might want to take a bit of an introspective look there at that. Ones faith is something between them and God. You may find yourself on very thin ice.
The bottom line is, you can’t see it James, but you feel I am close minded, and a “literalist”, thumping the Bible stupidly. The truth is, this is you falsely judging based on your own bias. My faith in God is not based on the method he chose to create us, nor how literal or not I feel the Book of Genesis is. It is based on his Spirit, which has chosen to live in/with me, because he called me to Him, not that I pursued him. He pursued me, found me, and brought me to himself, demonstrated his Love towards me, and is continually changing me through his love for me (a big job).
Look at yourself brother.
LikeLike
Wow, Dan sure cut-and-pasted a lot of creationist stupidity on this thread. It’s as though creationists have never heard of the Milano A-I apolipoprotein mutation, or even the Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Trial. Yet BSA actually allows people like Dan access to Boy Scouts? That’s some “breathtaking inanity” on their part.
LikeLike
it is unreasonable to believe that the evolutionary process (which is definitely real, and happens, even in humans), could be responsible for the creations we see.
Those best educated in the study of the natural world, those whose lives revolve around studying it most closely, carefully, and rigorously, and engage in the most careful, most controlled, most peer-reviewed reasoning about it, are “unreasonable?” Whereas you, who look at it with admiration, but without careful investigation or rigorous study, are reasonable?
Sorry, Dan, but when those who do the most careful study argue that these complex creations can arise through evolution, and when they repeatedly demonstrate precisely how that happens, and show us the material evidence of it happening, time and time again, just why should I accept the word of an amateur, who has done none of that hard study, that such things aren’t possible?
I respect your appreciation of nature. It sounds very much like mine. And I’m truly glad you teach Scouts that, since it seems fewer and fewer children get out into nature these days. But you’re an amateur about how things developed. You haven’t studied it intensively. I have worked closely with, and been friends with, biologists for years, and I have read deeply in the evolutionary literature. I share you awe at the complexity of creation; but I also understand, as you don’t, how small steps lead to that complexity.
Your inability to understand how it works does not mean it cannot work.
LikeLike
Dan,
Somehow in your book that rots away my moral foundation and has led me to the path of sin.
Yes, I’m happy to associate myself with that argument. The sin is the bearing of false witness. The only way you can sustain your argument–the way you have been sustaining it here–is to repeat the lies of the creationists; lies of people who do not actually do any empirical research to support their claims. Lies that have been repeatedly debunked, repeatedly demonstrated to be false, by people who do empirical research in this field.
Is the repetition of lies not a sin? Is the on-going indulgence in lies not a rotting of one’s moral foundation?
The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming, both the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence. There are only two ways to wish away that evidence: one is to pretend it does not exist, which is to engage in a falsehood. The other is to say that God planted false evidence, which is blasphemous.
Yes, I imagine you’ll try to claim that it’s been misinterpreted. But nobody can take that claim seriously coming from you, because you’ve never taken a serious look at the evidence and are therefore not in a position to make a reasoned judgment about it.
LikeLike
Dan,
You clearly have not studied evolutionary theory. Clearly you have only studied what it’s opponents say. The problem is, you are arguing against people who know far more about it than do you. That is, you are pretending you know that genetics doesn’t support evolutionary theory, when actual geneticists–people who study genetics, not just people–like you–who read a blog post or two about it–don’t agree with you.
“EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.” From a debate on talkorigins.org
Ummm a little double talk.
No, not double talk at all, and you would know it if you could find it in your heart to have the honesty a Christian is supposed to have. Mutations are random, but whether those mutations will be passed onto future generations and become more widely distributed throughout the population is not random. If the mutation is harmful enough, it will prevent the individual from successfully reproducing. If the mutation is neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial, it may spread through genetic drift, being neither selected for nor against. If the mutation is beneficial enough, it will enhance the carrier’s reproductive success and spread throughout the population simply through the process of its carriers being more successful in reproduction than those who don’t have it. That’s not random, so that’s why evolution is not like shaking a bag of sand. (Sorry to yell, but this “evolution is random” argument is my pet peeve–it’s a lie; and Christians are not supposed to lie.)
Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.
This is incoherent. Mutations are necessary for natural selection. Mutations are the things that are selected, or selected against, by nature. And of course creationists have never been able to show that mutations cannot be part of the engine–each time someone like Michael Behe thinks he has shown that other biologists promptly demonstrate the error. The oddity is that creationists stick with a strategy that has failed every time.
In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.
Again, you are repeating lies when you say that evolutionary theorists choose only one. At what point does it begin to bother you that you are bearing false witness about other people? And that whole business about “adding information?” We know that comes right out of William Demsbki, and nobody who’s well educated in this area takes Dembski seriously. He simply made up, out of thin air, a hypothesized constraint on evolution, and he’s never been able to actually demonstrate it empirically.
E.g., you say,
For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.
1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
The first, yes. The second, false, in the way you mean it. That’s Dembski all over, and I repeat that there is no empirical evidence for his randomly mutated hypothesis, which itself adds no information to the theory of evolution. Look again at the neck of the giraffe, which is structurally identical to ours, just a heck of a lot longer. There is nothing actually new there–there is just more of the same. It didn’t take new information to make the giraffe’s neck longer; it just took the same information and said “add some more of the same.”
You are trying your best here to make a serious critique of evolution, but you are relying on laughable and wholly discredited nonsense that has never gained any support in the sciences because it has been demonstrated repeatedly to be false.
Seriously, if your sole source of information is anti-evolution websites, then you don’t actually know what evolutionary theory is, because those folks consistently misrepresent it. You are relying on the words of liars and charlatans. If you are not afraid of really learning about evolutionary theory, try reading Your Inner Fish as a starting point.
But if you do not read what real for sure evolutionary theorists say, then you do not really know evolution, and you lack the strength of faith to really learn about it. Listening to you talk about evolution is like listening to a Muslim talk about Christianity–you get a very distorted picture of what it’s really all about.
LikeLike
Dan,
You’ve given no reason to believe God didn’t use evolution to create man. You’ve repeated the Genesis story, and assumed it must be scientific fact. But the Genesis story is about why God created us, and what happened after; it’s not truly meant to be descriptive of the precise process by which God brought things into being.
Perhaps you’re a biblical literalist, in which case I can only once again say that’s a sign of a very fragile, brittle faith.
Your commitment is not truly to seeing the evidence God has placed in the world, else you would look at the long trail of human evolution. You say God cannot lie–but if he cannot lie, then the fossil and genetic records showing human evolution must be true, and you are rejecting God’s evidence. But you’ll never take that seriously because quite evidently your faith is not robust enough to face up to that challenge.
Or at least you implicitly fear that it’s no. In fact your faith might very well turn out to be plenty strong enough to accept the evidence of human evolution, if you’ll be willing to take that bold step to look seriously at the actual physical evidence, instead of relying on arguments that have already been refuted; arguments that are known by many of their promulgators to have been thoroughly refuted, hence, arguments that are lies; and ultimately lies about God.
LikeLike
REASON 1 CONTINUED
Were Darwin’s Galapagos Finches Evolution?
What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.
What About Mutations?
But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare – correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out” so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don’t happen.
The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the “goo to you” hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.
1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.
The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotide’s worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?
Population Genetics Factors
Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the “noise” of random events in the population. In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population. But we see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death. Even elephants produce 5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor. Some organisms produce thousands or even millions to assure replacing themselves. Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.
But let’s say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive gene. Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase would be 20.02 for the mutation. Sir Ronald Fisher was a mathematician and one of the world’s experts on the mathematics of evolution and one of the founders of the field of population genetics. He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory. He calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations. He said: “A mutation, even if favorable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only.” Fisher R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover.
Let us continue our example above with Fisher’s calculations. Our organism with a 0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of surviving. If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With 1000 with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of 2500 organisms having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population? The chances that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738. Lee M. Spentner, Not By Chance – Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103.
A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information. They have never added new information to the genome, so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity. Are there beneficial mutations? Yes there are for certain environments. Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye. This mutation caused the eye, which was useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actually helped the catfish survive in the cave. But the catfish genome did not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome. In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome. If that blind fish were to be swept out of the cave by a flood, and that does happen, it won’t survive to pass on those no eye alleles. So natural selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it will quickly die. The important thing to keep in mind is that we all along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that genome to another. Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they will always snap back to the original when released.
If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes. They never got a house fly out of the deal. Why? Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly.
Beneficial verses Positive Mutations
How do we define “beneficial” mutations? It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes. It is a useful mutation, but not a positive mutation. A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the genome. Evolutionists get this definition confused too.
Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles. They are not the same. Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious. There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.
Was this a positive mutation? We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated allele or the expression of an allele in the genome that was already there. It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too. But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way. It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here.
So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another. Most people don’t appreciate the massive amount of point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population. The X-Men just couldn’t happen outside of the movies.
Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity
Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped. Molecular genetics have found that genomes have supported Taxonomy and not Phylogeny. It has also been found in molecular genetics that genomes have multiple copies of genes or of non-coding sequences that are very homogeneous within species, but heterogeneous between species. Such ‘repeats’ could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Evolutionists suggest an unexplained ‘molecular drive’ to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there is no common ancestral genome.
Michael Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” speaks of the irreducible complexity of several biological systems that cannot be created in a manner where there are non-functional intermediates because they wouldn’t exist long enough to pass on their structure. He uses the common mousetrap as his analogy, none of the parts can catch a mouse, and they all have to be present and functionally joined together to work. The cell is an example that had to be created in situ and not from an intermediate that couldn’t function much like the parts of the mousetrap.
There have been arguments from evolutionists that the parts of the mousetrap could be used for other uses, like fish hooks or paperweights, but that is missing the point entirely. That cellular systems are useful in other places does not say they would be useful in the cell by them selves, just as a paperweight won’t catch a mouse! It is a MOUSETRAP we are interested in, not a paperweight! One even said that a simple spring could catch a mouse. Ummmm yeah, right!
Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?
Another microbiological issue is the Hox gene that seemed to fit in the “punctuated equilibrium” of Gould, because a small mutation in a Hox gene could have a profound effect on the organism. But further research on the Hox gene proved this not to be Evolution’s Saviour. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a non-creationist critic of Darwinian evolution said this:
“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phyolgenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B: 167-177
In the eleven years since this quote research has born out this quote. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities; they do not change an amphibian into a reptile. And the mutations do not add any information; they just cause the existing information to be misdirected to create fruit fly legs where fruit fly antenna needs to be for instance.
Do not be misled by the Evolutionists. They constantly try to find the mutation that is positive (I don’t blame them either) and try to find the new thing that supports their theory. I have concerned Christians coming to me all the time with a newspaper article saying what about this?! I just tell them not to panic and wait because it too will fall and be found as nothing. Truly God is in control and all striving will cease. Pray for your evolutionist friends, don’t get into a mad argument with them, and love them as Christ called us to. Don’t call them names and don’t talk about them in bad ways, that is not Jesus in you.
Remember Evolution is a philosophy masquerading as a science. You are talking with someone who thinks “science” is totally on their side, but don’t really know it isn’t. They don’t believe in Creation because that would make them have to answer to God.
Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity
Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in its’ need to connect mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.
The Darwin concept:
One gene – One Protein – One Function
But we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionist’s wish’s the genetic structure has always been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution.
What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb all new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.
We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves its’ instructions to create the morphology or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.
Bent Proteins
Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We all wondered how could a bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?
As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in cells an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein machines in the cell as well as transmit data to assemble cell structures as well as create the macro morphology of an organism. This answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didn’t always have a one to one correspondence with morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cell. The appear to be bent in non-random ways based on the molecular structure and the bends are actually a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these protein bends and have seen how they actually provide more information to the cell than the genes themselves.
The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cell and occurs right out of the ribosome. The folded shape is determined by several factors.
1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.
2. Hydrogen bonds.
3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.
4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and small that help carry on cellular function.
In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cellular function. But this is all made possible by a process that is guided. Random folds wouldn’t work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cell.
This is something evolutionists may claim as “part of the great universal acid” of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin.
LikeLike
Reason Number 1
Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend
Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.
Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.
Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction
Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA
Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes.
Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.
Phylogeny – The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group.
As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur. Therefore we will now look at genetics and see if this is true.
But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.
“EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.” From a debate on talkorigins.org
Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that “evolution causes random mutation” because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.
But to be correct, evolution is a philosophy that masquerades as a science . So evolution isn’t necessarily any more random than the person’s thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation. Nor can it cause mutations random or otherwise.
Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Mendel is the father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution. In Darwin’s day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew really very little about how genetics worked. His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance. Mendel’s ideas were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant.
Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited. Thus the giraffe’s long neck was a result of the “inherited effects of the increased use of parts”. The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278. Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks. While even evolutionists today would see this a patently false, they still accept with apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of mutation. It wasn’t until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of Darwin didn’t work.
In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I will explain why in a bit. First the types of mutations:
1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA
2. Inversion of a segment of DNA
3. Deletion of a segment of DNA
4. Insertion of a segment of DNA
5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.
6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.
The first five are interesting genetic processes. Each is a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose. We don’t really know much about why the genes do this as we are still very weak in our knowledge of how our genome works. But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here: some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there. There are tens of maybe hundreds or trillions of combinations in our genome to recombine. We are wonderfully and fearfully made.
The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.
LikeLike
Ed (and Jim/James),
You said: It’s sad, to me, how creationism rots away the moral foundations of Christian believers and leads them to paths of iniquity.
This is a very strange statement from you, and frankly says a LOT. If you calm yourself down for a minute and stop and think for just a sec, you’ll see this truth:
You personally believe that God created mankind by putting in place a system we’ve called “Evolution”, and then sat back and watched it happen. I believe this process was created by God and can be observed in nature, but do not believe that it was used to take man from an amoeba to who we are today (or the rest of nature).
Somehow in your book that rots away my moral foundation and has led me to the path of sin.
That is an awkward statement at best, and I really think you guys should look at where that comes from…. Again, it really says something about the person who says that, what’s in the heart.
Jim & James – You sure you want to associate yourself with that statement, it’s kindof wacky (concerned look).
LikeLike
James –
James Said: It’s one thing to say you don’t believe God would; that’s a matter of faith. But it’s quite another to say that you don’t believe God could; that’s a blasphemy.
Is it blasphemy to say God can’t hate, God can’t sin, God can’t make a mistake, God cannot be defeated. I think not. However, calling God a liar, that would be blasphemy. The scriptures are clear that God took a very pointed, and active role in the creation of the world we know and all that is in it. He made decisions along the way as to what was good, and what was missing. He made decisions, set things into motions, breathed into man.. and then saw that a woman was needed and created her from man, and then he rested after it was done. To idea that he set the process of evolution in place once, and then sat back and let it all happen over eons, would be calling him a liar.
When I see a giraffe, what a very cool animal it is, how unusual, the fact that it’s so goofy in a way, and has to spread it’s legs to drink, etc. shows me who God is. He created a very interesting being just because he wanted to, for us to enjoy, and marvel at, and smile when we see it. You talk about me having an open mind. I say those who think a series of chances and “survival of fittest”, over eons led to creation as we know is. I say these folks should open their mind, and see that their creator is showing them who he is by his creation, that he decided to make, for us to enjoy.
I know you’ll likely say that God started the evolutionary process by putting the right environment in place, and knew what it would come out like it did. But I say that I believe what the scriptures say. That he actively was involved in every step of the creation as time marched on to the point that he rested.
The other reason, besides the scriptures that I believe in his direct creation is that it is unreasonable to believe that the evolutionary process (which is definitely real, and happens, even in humans), could be responsible for the creations we see. I am a Scout leader and spend a lot of time in nature, one of my sons is a freak about understanding how every living thing works, and everything about it. I’m constantly learning about the nuances of nature. The closer I look, the more I marvel at the intricacies within the systems of living things. The complexities yield themselves to a supreme creator, who wove all of this together, not a series of natural happenstance. I’ve given it a thought about a million times, and I don’t even get to first base when it comes to the idea of Evolution from amoeba to man. But to believe the Scriptures, and to see His creation, and to have witness to that in my Spirit when I pray to him in appreciation for what he has created… that’s a home run.
I talk to my Scouts all of the time about getting to know God through his creation, just by looking at what he’s done. We were created in His image. The things that interest us.. colors, cool systems, math, mystery, beauty, the way things fight and protect themselves, the hunt, death… He built them all in there for us to enjoy.
You obviously sincerely believe evolution is the process which brought us here, set in place by God I presume. You believe in the Theory of Evolution of mankind. I believe evolution is a process in nature, that God created, but do not believe the theory that it was the tool he used to create man… for the gazillion reasons I’ve mentioned.
LikeLike
James Hanley says…
***”I think the problem is that their faith is much more brittle than they are willing to recognize. It’s not enough for them that God is God; God must be God in precisely the way they have been taught that God is.”***
And all I can do is applaud wildly. Bravo, my friend.
Jim
LikeLike
@Dan–I absolutely don’t belive that God could/would use Evolution to evolve from ameoba to man
It’s one thing to say you don’t believe God would; that’s a matter of faith. But it’s quite another to say that you don’t believe God could; that’s a blasphemy.
@Dan–It’s like saying if you get a bunch of sand and shake it up, that over some time, eventually a working computer would emerge.
This is just as bad an analogy as Hoyle’s tornado creating a jumbo jet. It’s based on the assumption that the whole process is random, which is simply false. That’s one of the standard errors of those who criticize evolution from a position of ignorance.
@StillobtuseIsee–Cultural Marxists
Any hope this writer might have had that he would be taken seriously was completely destroyed when he dropped in this little ideological tidbit.
@Dan00here in Florida, 99% is slang for most, Americas a pretty diverse place you know.
So you don’t have any problems if I say 99% of American voters in the last presidential election voted for Barack Obama?
@Dan–Cool, so I come from amoeba after all, how exciting.
Actually, I do find it exciting. That throughout billions of years of history evolution takes us from amoeba to me is just an amazing thought. It’s mind-boggling! And that’s probably your problem with it–it’s just tough to conceive. But when you look at all the little steps that make up this journey, each one is very simple, not at all difficult to conceive. But the end result is still astounding, amazing, and exciting.
@Ed–It’s sad, to me, how creationism rots away the moral foundations of Christian believers and leads them to paths of iniquity.
Sadly, true. I think the problem is that their faith is much more brittle than they are willing to recognize. It’s not enough for them that God is God; God must be God in precisely the way they have been taught that God is. Consequently they cling desperately to concepts of God that have nothing to do with God’s inherent nature. Could a loving, merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present God use evolution as the tool for creation? Yes, because the method of creation is not a necessary part of God’s inherent nature. And yet they desperately need to confirm a particular creation method as a necessary aspect of who God is. Not that I was ever able to develop much faith myself, but having grown up in the church and having known a number of people who had deep faith not shaken by such minor uncertainties, I cannot help but have some sympathy for those who need to prop up their own faith with such trivialities.
LikeLike
“Are you trying to enlighten people out of love for them, hoping their lives will somehow be happier if they embrace your silly views on the origins of man?”
Yeah it so Silly that the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and all major Christian denominations outside the USA accept it, and most of the big ones in America do too.
When you get down to it your only allies in this fight, outside of the USA, are hard-line Muslim extremists.
LikeLike
You could do a minimum amount of research and figure out what’s going on. But it would require an open mind.
Somebody in your family has diabetes. Someone in your family has cancer and will die from it. Someone you know suffers greatly from allergic reactions. You live in an area where malaria used to kill dozens of people every year. Why aren’t you pushing for solutions to those medical problems, instead of campaigning in favor of the diseases?
LikeLike
Here, Dan, a couple of sites you can peruse in your spare moments, to get information for your consideration:
From South Texas College:
http://www.southtexascollege.edu/nilsson/2_EV_Evolution_TaskForce_f/2_EV_EpisCathol_Evol_Intro.html
And here, start with Evolution 101:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Make sure your vessel is full so it doesn’t make unnecessary noise.
LikeLike
Wow Ed, seems I struck a nerve with you. I would question your motivation in devoting so much time, energy, and emotion into this. Are you trying to enlighten people out of love for them, hoping their lives will somehow be happier if they embrace your silly views on the orgins of man? Or is it that you are trying to come to terms with it youruself, and feel that by “fighting” it valiently, you will justify it in your own mind? Or are you afraid that you might not know all of the answers? Really brother, search your motivations.
By the way, I read your posts real quick, and SLAM, I write a response and move on. How do you have time for all of this. Are you retired, what are you doing to better society with your time? Might want to take a gander at that aspect of things as well.
Tell me something Ed. Do you believe in God? I ask, because I believe there is NO person alive who does not believe in God. Not one. There are those who are not being honest with themselves, but EVERYONE believes in God in truth.
So anyways, I’m rambling, but I want you to know that I’m slammed with my work, and volunteer work, and family, and don’t have time, to read, research, and respond to your posts right away, but I definitely will very soon.
LikeLike
Dan, your own mitochondria and their endosymbiotic origin show that your ancient ancestors were single-celled. This scientific information isn’t hidden away from all but a chosen few – it is readily available to nearly anyone who is literate and not living in a fundamentalist theocracy, and even easier for those with internet access, so your ignorance is no excuse. As for human evolution from a common ancestor with the various chimp species, that is confirmed by both the genetic data (online via NCBI) and the fossil record. Which link do you claim is missing?
LikeLike
I said: “4.1 There is a vanishingly small, and vanishing, line between living things and non-living things. Most major universities no longer distinguish between regular chemistry and organic chemistry — there is no rational way to distinguish. You’d know that, were you observant of very old research on origins of cells and origins of life.”
Dan said:
Oh, the video covered the research. It was research based completely — not a lick of speculation, no supposition. It is indeed your “bad.” I give you the facts, I cite to the research, you smash into the truth and pick yourself up and walk away as if nothing had happened.
“4.2 Spontaneous generation of life chemicals has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Chemicals necessary for life have been observed in every part of the universe. See the Miller-Urey experiment for one example; similar experiments have been repeated for every possible combination of chemicals in every hypothesized early-Earth scenario, and the chemicals pop out, spontaneously, every time. That these chemicals are observed to exist throughout the universe only strengthens the case for spontaneous generation.”
Dan said:
You’re often a troll in behavior, Dan. As I point out, spontanous generation of cells is the next step. It’s obnoxious when you ignore what is said, and then self-righteously claim to tell me to “pay attention.”
The New Testament is right. Confronted with the knowledge presented to them on a platter from God’s creation, creationists will claim it not so. (See Romans 1:20)
Despite Dan’s ignoring the facts: “4.3 Spontaneous generation of cells happens all the time, as Sidney Fox demonstrated about 50 years ago; since we know it goes on now (though most of the new creations become lunch for already-living organisms), it’s just wrong, and absurd, to claim it could not have occurred in the past. Spend some time with Astrobiology magazine.”
You’d do well to read the book yourself, you know? It talks about Pasteur’s disproof of the spontaneous generation of complex life — the claim that mice arise from piles of old rags, for example. This has nothing at all to do with the rise of cellular life at the cellular level.
Confess: You didn’t read the thing yourself, and you don’t know the difference between single-celled life and complex life, do you.
Pasteur’s swan-neck flask experiment is done one better by Stanley Miller’s swan-neck flask, in which amino acids proliferated under similarly sterile conditions, but conditions replicating the early atmosphere of the Earth. Sidney Fox’s work extended that farther, showing that cellular creatures that consume, grow and replicate, spontaneously arise from those “soups.”
Come on, Dan, read the stuff I send your way.
Sleep is a fascinating topic. In nearly a billion years, animals have non evolved to not need sleep. Why do you suppose that is? Why would you reject the science that studies such fascinating questions?
No you don’t, as the rest of your paragraph demonstrates. Moral corruption of creationism creeps into everything the creationist says.
I’m not the one self-proclaiming to know more than science, more than God. Don’t project so, Dan.
That’s a crass, crude and false charge, Dan. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Who do you think you’re talking about? You haven’t got a clue what scientists actually said — to the point that you think scientists have made false claims, wildly false claims, including claims against God.
Your view is made false by creationism. You slander great work by Godly men, and you dismiss the glory of creation of God in the doing.
Then you have the gall to claim I am misguided.
Bull excrement. What claims of scientists have been “proven wrong?” In global warming, the claims that warming is not occurring have been proven wrong. The claims that humans can’t cause global warming have been proven false.
But that’s not what you’re talking about, is it. You’re defending false claims against hard scrutiny of science by honest people.
Remember how I said creationism corrupts the creationists? You can’t see the truth when it blows a hurricane through your state.
Like today, I’ve learned (again!) that hardcore creationists are corrupted to the core, and cannot tell the truth when it stands up and shouts at them.
I have to learn that lesson over and over, because I am also infected with hope that the creationist’s eye scales will come off someday, and he will see.
LikeLike
Here, Dan; information that might help bring you up-to-date on recent findings about evolution of life:
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4263/the-surprising-complexity-of-luca
LikeLike
Dan said:
Old, tired, wrong claims. The absurd claim that blood clotting can’t be explained, and especially that the evolution of blood clotting can’t be tracked, when there is much research on exactly that topic that demonstrates how clotting works and how the human clotting system evolved. That claim was made at the Pennsylvania trial, Dan, and it was determined to be false. Frankly, a claim that is judicially determined to be false isn’t good evidence anywhere, not even under much-relaxed rules most religious nuts want to use to argue religion. Bad logic, bad data, and ultimately a claim which is a lie. Creationism causes moral corruption like that. You don’t intend to tell whoppers, but in order to defend creationism, you must.
It’s sad, to me, how creationism rots away the moral foundations of Christian believers and leads them to paths of iniquity.
Yeah, I know you can’t list holes in evolution. You’d think that, in the middle of this exchange, I would have figured out that your modus operandus is to make grand and grandiose claims that you can’t support, or that you don’t intend to be taken seriously.
More of that moral corruption, I suppose. It’s sad.
You can’t prove creation the way you want, either, because it’s a bizarre fabrication of ideas, lending noble light neither to science nor religion. Creationism is false doctrine. It corrupts the vessels that contain it as surely as it is, itself, corrupted.
There’s more evidence of the moral corruption caused by creationism. You’re admitting to false things.
Evolution of humans is solid, written in the DNA, written in the rocks. It’s called a “theory” because, in science terms, it’s proven, and theories explain to us how things work and predict things that we have yet to see or understand. Evolution theory is more solid than gravity theory — we know how evolution works, we know how it is carried through the physical world,a nd we can actually manipulate it to a great degree. Gravity has never been observed directly; only recently has it become common knowledge that it’s carried on gravitons — but no one has ever seen a graviton, no one has ever detected one, and no one has a clue how to manipulate it.
But there you are, denying evolution as if it were some great mystery beyond the ken of humans who seek knowledge.
Your denial is much more a measure of what you don’t know and don’t care to endeavor to know, than it is a measure of the state of science. Your claims are simply false, can’t stand up in a lab, can’t stand up in the field, labeled false in court. Is there any test for truth or accuracy creationism can pass? No.
Kant wrote of the great journey of knowledge, and the dangers inherent in learning things. “Dare to know” Kant said (“Sapere aude!“). You should try it some time. Get that book I referred to you, by Jonathan Weiner. Read it. You’ll be better for it, less corrupted in thought, closer to knowledge. “Knowledge is the glory of God,” the Mormons say. No wonder fundies think them suspect.
No, it’s not ridiculous. Cancer cures depend on it. Cures and prevention of countless diseases, infectious and congenital, syndromes due to contact, all depend on gaining more knowledge about how humans work, and how humans and human systems evolved. Curing cancers is one of the great glories of human achievement — and understanding evolution of cells and evolution of humans is essential to that quest.
Jesus was a person who put great stock in such cures. It’s sad to see creationists turn their backs on the work of Jesus, on the causes Jesus pushed, and on God’s creation.
To say the evidence is weak and not tested a thousand ways is false. It’s a lie. It’s a morally corrupt claim.
God has provided us with hard proof of evolution. Denying the hard evidence God gives is not affirming God in any way.
It’s a divine weariness. When one is in the wrong, there is no divine support for the fight. Weariness is not only natural, but speeded in such cases. Isn’t there scripture on that?
LikeLike
Ed.
About holes, I can argue with you ’till I’m blue in the face. Instead of me listing the holes, why not you just search for “Holes in Evolution”. Here’s some for a quick reference
http://faculty.gordon.edu/ns/by/dorothy_boorse/documents/TheTruthprojectreviewfinal.doc
Hey, you know I was thinking about it, and with all of the back and forth, I actually think I learned something. I can’t prove creationism, because our creator has chosen to not reveal himself to us, in the way that you’d want.. face to face where you can touch him. Also, you can’t prove evolution of man, evolution as a process in nature, yes, but evolution of man from an amoeba. Nope, not even close. Have to admit that.
You know, taking a step back Ed. Us humans. We’re pretty basic. We try to ascent to high understandings about how our bodies, nature, and the universe work, but in reality, we know almost nothing. I admit, I know little about the mysteries of life, the universe and my own creation. I feel that it’s awesome to explore, and to become more informed about these things, but to get to a point where we feel we know and understand how it all works. Well, that’s simply ridiculous when you take a step back and look at it.
God created us to be curious about this, and to appreciate and to explore his Creation. Even evolution, this process is intriguing and it’s interesting to explore. But to say that we can figure out how creation happened through this process based on some weak, evidence, with little or no testing, is just downright cocky. My real proof is that I know God, and his goodness, and see Him at work every day in our lives, actively. I can’t produce hard proof because until he reveals himself to us in that way I mentioned before, I can’t prove it. But I know. Trust me I know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Enough said we’re getting nowhere. I don’t know about you, but I’m growing tired of this…
LikeLike
James,
Regarding the fact that I said if you think otherwise, you are sorely misguided and ignorant.
That seemed to greatly offend you to the point when you said I was acting like a jerk and asshole…
Sorry man, to me, misguided and ignorant aren’t offensive. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been misguided, or have been ill-informed… ignorant on matters. And honestly, I appreciate when someone tells me that… especially if they’re right.
Thicken up man.
LikeLike
Ed,
Sorry bubbuh, here in Florida, 99% is slang for most, Americas a pretty diverse place you know.
LikeLike
James,
The fact that you are Catholic, and have been all your life, how does that make me to have made a stupid assumption? The fact that I said “God IS” science, do you think that implies I was saying you don’t believe in God or something? Speaking of making incredibly stupid assumptions… ehhem.. come on dude, looks like you did, thinking I was implying that when I didn’t. You really need to learn to not read into things people write.
As far as science never 100% proven, agreed. About “amoeba to humans” as far more evidence than creationism. That’s your biased opinion, and you’re entitled to that, I just happen to think that it’s a silly one.
Now, you saying there’s no proof for creationism. I am a common sense person. My intuition always steers me right in life. It’s not hard to look at a situation, and quickly ascertain the practical truth in any matter. Looking at the shattered facts surrounding that an amoeba turned into the amazing creation, body, brain, spirit, and conscious soul that were are, and how preposterous in any sense of practical terms that is, so obviously is just a crock. Simply put, if you, or anyone else takes the time to really think about it, although evolution of things happens, no one can honestly say that an amoeba, works its way to us. It’s SO very clear to me, why can’t you see that? I mean, seriously, Its completely laughable, and you probably some day will look back on this time in your life and be pretty embarrassed that you could be so misguided as to come to this place/understanding.
Regarding proof for creationism. As a Catholic Christian, you might want to dust off the good book and look into a few hundred verses that declare the fact that God created us. Don’t really know what to say about that, I’m frankly dumbfounded by that statement from a Catholic Christian.
About saying what I said that it’s like explaining it to someone who is blind and deaf… You’re right, I’m much too direct and say what I think when I’m posting because if I were face to face, I would be polite. To me, when posting, I think the layers of politeness, and courtesy, and all of that should come down, there’s no time for that, just say what you honestly think. And that IS what I think. Its not like I was calling your horrible names, or saying something abusive about your mother or anything, I just expressed how I felt about trying to communicate to someone who isn’t being honest with themselves.
LikeLike
Ed,
The first word of you prior post…the very first word…sums up my entire reaction to the discourse.
I didn’t know you were fluent in Yiddish! (Though I have long considered you a real mensch.)
Cheers!
Jim
LikeLike
Dan writes:
So, OF COURSE they teach it, it’s fact. Most also teach the human theory too, but not to embrace it, but to be open minded and udnerstand it. If you think otherwise, your sorely misguided and ignorant.
Oh and just in case you ever wonder…the reason that Christianity tends to have a bad reputation is clearly demonstrated by what you said above.
Sorry, I don’t recall it being said anywhere in the Bible that we Christians are supposed to act like jerks and assholes in God’s name. Where does it say that in your Bible?
LikeLike
Oy.
You wish.
You know how we use DNA evidence now to get convicted murderers off of death row and out of jail? We do that because DNA evidence is so powerful, so precise, and not suitable for tampering in many cases.
That same DNA indicates humans evolved from an ancestor common with other apes — we’re cousins with the chimpanzees. That same DNA shows that the apes evolved from ancestors common with monkeys, and lemurs, and so on, all the way back to “amoebas” in uncareful lay terms.
The only way to claim the evidence is weak, is to deny the evidence that exists. That’s not honest. It’s not science, and it’s not accurate.
Sure there are. Name two. Describe them.
In creationism, yes. In evolution, no. In evolution, small leaps almost exclusively.
In the evolution of humans, small steps. No leaps. Scientific process only.
You’ve studied this, you say? Not evident.
Just understand and acknowledge that it is your belief, and not an evidence-based conclusions. It is your faith that evolution doesn’t work, and not a scientific conclusion based on evidence carefully assembled and rationally considered.
What missing link? You’re imagining difficulties in data and evidence that do not exist.
No you can’t. The Bible doesn’t support creationism nearly so much as it supports evolution, but you’ll deny scripture in order to deny evolution. You’ll deny that the universe is God’s creation in order to deny evolution — and claim you’re supporting God all the way.
As you just did.
Christians in science assume — assume — that nature’s secrets laid bare by observation are from God, because nature does not lie, because nature is from the hand of God.
You’re making an opposite assumption. Your assumption is neither based on scripture nor science.
So, what is it?
LikeLike
In most conversations, “most” means 50% +1 — that’s the formal definition under Roberts’s Rules, too. “99%” in polite, casual conversation means “practically all, way beyond most.”
Check with the usage dictionaries, and tell me where I err. What do Strunk and White say? The everyday lexicons? Specialized dictionaries like Black’s Law Dictionary or dictionaries of slang?
LikeLike
The teaching of science is going on here, full bore. At those colleges who most honor Christian commitment to telling the truth, and where the chips really count, evolution is taught. Not timid evolution. Not evolution “but,” but evolution.
You didn’t know?
And when I pointed out your view expressed there is in error, you jumped all over me for assuming that you said “to jump to the latter is insane.”
Evolution to new species is also a fact, observed in real time in the wild and in the lab. Get a copy of Jonathan Weiner’s excellent, Pulitzer Prize-winning science history, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. We can tell new species only in restrospect. None of these universities teaches that evolution only proceeds within species — that’s false, as we know from observation. They teach that the diversity of species we see today is a result of evolution over a very long period of time, and that evolution continues daily.
Human evolution is not a different theory. Again, human evolution is taught based on the massive amount of evidence — and I’ve checked, and I’m neither misguided nor ignorant on this point. You can check, too — get on the phone someday and call the biology departments at the schools you wish to check. I mentioned several of those I know about personally. They don’t teach a timid, not-really-evolution form of evolution. They teach it honestly, based on the science, without reservation.
LikeLike
Dan writes:
Oh man, you are so misguided. God IS science, who do you think invented all of the hundreds of thousands of intricate systems, laws, physical relationships, the math of it all. So-called “theology” isn’t mixed with Science, it IS science.
First off, I’m Catholic. Have been all my life. Would you like to acknowledge that you made an incredibly stupid assumption there?
But the statement that God “invented all of the hundreds of thousands of intricate systems, laws, physical relationships…” is a statement of faith and not of fact. You can say the same about Puff the Magic Dragon, Shiva, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti monster, or any other deity or wished for deity and be equally right….and equally wrong. So no..you’re the misguided one. You’re the one letting your arrogance have a little too much play.
When I said “Science should not pick sides in theology” it means simply that science has no business telling people that “This god did this” or “that god did that.” It’s beyond science’s ken.
As for the statement you make regarding that “evolution has been proven within a species” (and I may be paraphrasing what you said there)….have fun explaining then why we share 90+% of the same genetic code as the apes.
As for the rest..nothing in science is ever 100% proven. But evolution…from an “amoeba to humans” has far more evidence to back it then creationism.
Or rather…evolution has evidence to back it and creationism has none.
TO quote:
Honestly, it’s like trying to explain something to someone who is blind and deaf, I don’t know if you’ll ever get it.
The absolute last position you want to take with me, Dan, is that. You, in that statement, were being stupidly arrogant and stupidly insulting. Why don’t you, little brother Christian of mine, recognize exactly how little like Christ you were acting with that statement and apologize. Or should I proceed to treat you exactly in kind?
Because I can accuse you of being blind and deaf and come far closer to the mark. So watch your tongue lest you slit your throat with it.
LikeLike
Jim,
Thanks for your post, it was very interesting to say the least.
In my first post, I stated that Evolution is a fact. However there’s a difference between recognizing the evolutionary process, and believing that evolution was a ‘tool” used by God to create man from an ameoba.
It’s easy to see when things make sense and don’t in life. The Science attempting to support the Theory for man is weak. There are holes all over, it makes no sense. There are huge leaps, assumptions, very unscientific conclusions, that don’t follow any kind of scientific process. So, no, I absolutely don’t belive that God could/would use Evolution to evolve from ameoba to man. If I saw proof, and there was enough time, and all of the missing links were filled in. I could easily look past the scriptures which talk about God breathing into man, and say it was just a symbol of what he did through evolution.
But the reality is, it’s proposterous to believe it to me, it doesn’t add up and isn’t supported.
Thanks again for your Post though.
LikeLike
Ed,
About Christian Universities teaching evolution… Really, do you not realize what’s going on there?
As I stated in my very first post (would you have bothered reading it before your blabbering), I was talking about evolution of an ameoba to a man, and I said that Evolution w/n species is a fact, but to jump to the latter is insane!
So, OF COURSE they teach it, it’s fact. Most also teach the human theory too, but not to embrace it, but to be open minded and udnerstand it. If you think otherwise, your sorely misguided and ignorant.
LikeLike
James,
Thank you for your kind and informative email.
FYI when an American says 99%, they don’t mean that as a scientific quote of a study, it’s slang for “most”. Might want to keep that in your pocket bro.
I never said the theory of Evolution rejects God. Might want to learn the difference between what someone says, and what you want to hear. I said that most people who believe in Evolution reject the idea of a creator (IN CONTEXT I was talking about Evolution from amoeba to human… please read my original post to keep me in context).
Oh man, you are so misguided. God IS science, who do you think invented all of the hundreds of thousands of intricate systems, laws, physical relationships, the math of it all. So-called “theology” isn’t mixed with Science, it IS science. I’ve bothered to research extensively to see what those who believe man came from amoebas are trying to say, and the facts don’t pan out – AT ALL. I’ve also looked at how what we observe in science/nature plays into a superior creator, and it falls into place perfectly. So I say to you, please don’t YOU mix Science and Theology, nor separate them… they are one.
Honestly, it’s like trying to explain something to someone who is blind and deaf, I don’t know if you’ll ever get it.
Sorry.
LikeLike
To quote:
***#1 – 99% of anyone talking evolution rejects the notion of a creator being involved, so you’re very much in the minority of people***
Despite your delusion to the contrary, just because the theory of evolution doesn’t mention God one way or the other does not mean it’s saying God doesn’t exist.
You might want to learn the difference between a neutral statement and a negative statement.
Science should not pick sides in a theological debate.
LikeLike
Take it a step further: With the possible exception of Loma Linda University, every Christian-based university in the U.S. teaches evolution only in biology, and most do not teach creationism in theology classes. Southern Methodist, Texas Christian, Baylor, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, all the Jesuit colleges, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Chapman, Pacific Lutheran, Brigham Young, the various Concordias — you pick it, evolution is taught.
Because evolution is what the evidence shows.
LikeLike
Good morning, Dan!
Thanks for your response. I am not sure I’ve time to address everything, but I particularly wish to respectfully challenge this remark you offered:
***#1 – 99% of anyone talking evolution rejects the notion of a creator being involved, so you’re very much in the minority of people***
You might want to check again. Have you heard of Wheaton College? Taylor University? Messiah College? These are just three among dozens of evangelical Christian institutions of higher learning where the science faculty (and theology profs, too) are either entirely or almost entirely theistic evolutionists. I even discovered a few closeted evolutionists at my alma mater, the very conservative Moody Bible Institute.
Additionally, all but the most extreme fundamentalist denominations hold forth the view that evolution is at least as likely a tool of the Creator as anything else. Even the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches affirm evolution.
Evolution does not negate or nullify belief in God. For me, it’s just the opposite. Such a theory is far more detailed, complex and intricate as the notion that the Almighty spoke and everything was in place. I know God CAN do that. But DID He? The scientific evidence for a literal reading of Genesis is non-existant. Rather than abandon my faith, however, I choose to believe the Creator-God…who holds time itself in the palm of His/Her hand…savored the experience over billions of years. Jesus, who the Bible says was the agent and sustainer of creation, was nothing if not extravagant. He knows how to throw a party!
Do you really argue that the complexities and adaptations of evolution are too much for Him to handle?
You might also want to read up on Dr. Francis Collins, erst of the Human Genome Project. He is a born-again Christian and a serious apologist for the evolutionist position.
Peace to you, my friend!
Jim
LikeLike
1. The 12 billion figure is almost pure fiction.
Response: Oh well, that settles it, thank you for that exhaustive proof.
2. Every part of evolution has been demonstrated to be possible from natural processes — observed both in the wild, and in the lab. Every part.
Response: Oh well, that settles it, thank you for that exhaustive proof on this one too.
3. DNA mutations produce new information all the time.
Response: Do they, wow, you’ve seen that have you, well then, I stand corrected.
4. Non-living chemicals get converted into life all the time in my lawn. If that were not so, I’d never have to mow. What does my lawn know that you don’t?
Response: You’re right, feeding plant life with nutrients. Same exact thing as mixing chemicals, and wallah, there’s an amoeba! Thanks for the clarification.
4.1 There is a vanishingly small, and vanishing, line between living things and non-living things. Most major universities no longer distinguish between regular chemistry and organic chemistry — there is no rational way to distinguish. You’d know that, were you observant of very old research on origins of cells and origins of life.
Response: Well, thank you for recognizing I’m observant of very old research. Not like your video from the 70’s, oh wait, that wasn’t research was it, it was supposition. My bad, again I stand corrected.
4.2 Spontaneous generation of life chemicals has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Chemicals necessary for life have been observed in every part of the universe. See the Miller-Urey experiment for one example; similar experiments have been repeated for every possible combination of chemicals in every hypothesized early-Earth scenario, and the chemicals pop out, spontaneously, every time. That these chemicals are observed to exist throughout the universe only strengthens the case for spontaneous generation.
Response: No, I wasn’t saying spontaneous chemicals, I said chemicals spontaneously creating life. Again Ed, would appreciate you reading posts you’re responding to. Pay attention man.
4.3 Spontaneous generation of cells happens all the time, as Sidney Fox demonstrated about 50 years ago; since we know it goes on now (though most of the new creations become lunch for already-living organisms), it’s just wrong, and absurd, to claim it could not have occurred in the past. Spend some time with Astrobiology magazine.
Response: Maybe you should read one of thousands of Scientific Opinions such as this: http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27
So, I’m tired, and need to sleep (I guess in a few billion years, humans will have evolved to not need to sleep)… I don’t have the energy to respond to all of your other junk. Let me tell you, I’m going to be out for a while, so if I don’t respond, don’t take it personal.
Ed, I think you’re sincere in your pursuit of the truth here, but Ed, you’re misguided. In your self-proclaimed wisdom, you have become a fool. Just like the scientists in the past, who have made so many claims, disregarding the true scientific process of reasoning, and not making claims w/o proof, which have time and time again been dis-proven. The huge leaps and assumptions of scientists today, in regards to global warning, evolution, and time and time again, claims of various things that harm the human, are proven wrong again and again. It’s quite comical really.
I hope some day your blinders will come off and you will see the pure simple truth right in front of your nose Ed. And when you look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you really, truly believe some of what you believe, PLEASE, be honest with at least yourself. You’ll learn a lot.
LikeLike
Dawkins assumes his audience has the sense God gave chickens, and that they are at least as smart as a Dachsund.
He’s not the first to go wrong by overestimating the capabilities of audiences.
LikeLike
StillObtuseISee,
I just read your post. I very much appreciate your logic. Don’t mind me saying, but it reminds me of Dr. Spock :)
— Dan
LikeLike
That’s a possibility, but I notice you don’t appear to rely on any serious sources of information to back you up.
Am I misinformed? Surely you’d cite the correct information, were I so wrong.
I don’t find that with a quick search, nor with a long search, nor with the searches I’ve conducted over the past decade or so. What you’ll find is that about 28% of Americans hold to evolution solidly, and a few percentage points more have no serious objections — to about 48 percent. The polls will show a higher percentage committed to creationism than those who understand evolution, but a smaller “leaning” creationist, for about 48% to 50%.
That’s been pretty solid for about the past 15 years, with some wiggling back and forth.
Before you pluck a completely wrong number like you did last time — 99% of evolution understanders being atheist — check the facts, will you? You accuse me of not knowing what I’ve been tracking for more than a decade.
See this 2004 poll from CBS, for example. Or see the Gallup polls tracking the issue over the past 28 years — with a record high number of people saying God has no part, in December 2010.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your numbers were plucked from . . . the air. No basis in fact. You have a lot of gall to complain, when you make stuff up like that — even if you had thought your numbers were not made up. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again, if you have any support for your claims, bring it. In the meantime, you may want to look at the real figures — 51% of scientists express faith in a higher power, while 99.9% of those express confidence in the theory of evolution in most serious measures (see the “Steves” petition at NCSE, for example) — much different from the “99% of evolutionists are atheists” numbers you plucked out of . . . where did you pluck those numbers from?
Are you really so far behind? Or are you just taking drugs to steel your denialism?
1. The 12 billion figure is almost pure fiction.
2. Every part of evolution has been demonstrated to be possible from natural processes — observed both in the wild, and in the lab. Every part.
3. DNA mutations produce new information all the time.
4. Non-living chemicals get converted into life all the time in my lawn. If that were not so, I’d never have to mow. What does my lawn know that you don’t?
4.1 There is a vanishingly small, and vanishing, line between living things and non-living things. Most major universities no longer distinguish between regular chemistry and organic chemistry — there is no rational way to distinguish. You’d know that, were you observant of very old research on origins of cells and origins of life.
4.2 Spontaneous generation of life chemicals has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Chemicals necessary for life have been observed in every part of the universe. See the Miller-Urey experiment for one example; similar experiments have been repeated for every possible combination of chemicals in every hypothesized early-Earth scenario, and the chemicals pop out, spontaneously, every time. That these chemicals are observed to exist throughout the universe only strengthens the case for spontaneous generation.
4.3 Spontaneous generation of cells happens all the time, as Sidney Fox demonstrated about 50 years ago; since we know it goes on now (though most of the new creations become lunch for already-living organisms), it’s just wrong, and absurd, to claim it could not have occurred in the past. Spend some time with Astrobiology magazine.
Your sarcasm was misaimed. Nor did it sound like sarcasm to one who has listened to creationists screw up science, history and law, for many years. Your claim was that you find it difficult to grant credence to evolution because, you said, you think it’s like shaking sand to start out. Then you said you prefer a system that is like shaking stand all the way. If you meant that as sarcasm, could you have at least provided a smiley emoticon, and then demonstrated somewhere else along the line that you understand evolution in the least?
No, I can’t figure out what you meant. It just seems obvious to me you haven’t studied the issue of evolution much, but you feel no compunction against attempting to ridicule the theory you have not endeavored to understand.
Sarcasm? It looked like ignorance, to me. My apologies.
My apologies. I regret you don’t follow my posts. But then, you don’t bother to respond with serious discussion, but instead with sarcasm that can’t be determined, and which you appear unwilling to stand by on further consideration. It’s tough to make sense to someone who doesn’t bother much with sense.
You were the guy who argued that atheists shouldn’t be Scouts, thereby drumming out of the corps many of the founders of Scouting?
Show me where I’ve screwed up — but please, check for sources to support your claims, and bring them.
LikeLike
Ed,
Wow, you are highly mis-informed. Do a quick internet search, and you’ll see study after study, poll after poll showing that those who believe evolution occurred in humans without involvement of God are in the vast minority. Please before you throw out random number, do a quick search, so as to not discredit your reputation in here. Your percentages and studies are completely off, and un-founded. If you regard yourself as a regular poster on this blogsite, I advise you to at least attempt to back your “Facts” with real stats dude.
Regarding rejection of science, gimme a break bro. The fact that there are 12 billion bits of instructions stored to repair and operate simple living cells, which could never form from natural process, the fact that DNA mutation could never produce genetic information that drives upward evolution, the fact that non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own, spontaneous generation is impossible, the fact that in science, with systems, nothing works until everything works, things don’t progress to an end as a whole, fossil records that show sudden abrupt changes with no evolutionary evidence, the fact of human consciousness, language…. All of these and many, many, more scientific approaches to test/study the theory of evolution of mankind with no Creation intervention, FAILED my friend.
You made some statement about me rejecting time because I think heart and soul were created by shaking. Can’t you understand sarcasm? I can’t believe you didn’t understand that it what I wrote, I won’t respond to it, because you are sorely mistaken. I’m speechless by your lack of perception with what I so obviously posted.
Your blabbering about creation say evolution was the method. Please re-read your posts. Ed. Seriously, you make no practical sense. My guess is you post too much, and are tired, but please re-read what you wrote, it makes no sense. I remember writing to you about Boy Scouts and atheism, and you were the same way.
I’ve never run across anyone who mis-reads others writings as such, and who posts with so much confidence, and alleged facts, with everything so screwed up! Come on guy!
LikeLike
Well, yeah, if you exclude all the Christians who belong to sects who have no difficulty with science, and you exclude Jews and Moslems, too. Otherwise, polls of high-level working scientists indicate that 40% are believers in religions — the vast majority in the Abramic religions, and the vast majority of those Christians — and that figure rises to about 60% in biology, the science that is really founded on evolution theory.
On the other hand, 99.9% of those who reject science on the issue of evolution do so out of religious misconviction, and not on the basis of any science.
If we just do the numbers, in the U.S. and Europe, most people who accept evolution are believers, too. Fully 86% of all Americans claim to be believers, and evolution is accepted by about half of all Americans. (The other half either can’t read or refuse to study evolution, I suspect in my deepest cynical moods.)
Evolution is mute on the issue of existence of God, and the issue of God is moot to evolution.
In other words, evolution doesn’t reject God. The veracity of evolution is no reason for faithful to reject God, if they understand their own faith.
You’ve got a more rational explanation, supported at each step by solid evidence, as is evolution?
So, you reject the element of time. You think that intelligence, emotion, heart and soui were created by just shaking up a bunch of sand, without any time.
Excuse me, but I think your explanation makes much less sense. Anyone who bakes bread, gardens, tends a forest, educates or raises children, can vouch for the advantages of having time to accomplish great things.
To Christians, especially to thinking Christians of Darwin’s era, the study of nature was one way to determine God’s methods and intentions, since God was assumed to be the creator of all things. Creation is the Second Testament of God, and more accurate, since it’s physical evidence, and not old goat-herders’ tales transmitted (badly) over more than 5,000 years in no fewer than three different languages, orally for more than ten centuries.
Does creation say evolution was the method? Then that must be true, if God is not a liar.
If the scripture you point to is also accurate, then, yes, you’ve made a good case that God evolved, if that is part of the image of God.
You’ve certainly not made any case against evolution.
LikeLike
James,
Wow, I’m so sorry. I am not trying to offend you, but I can honestly say, that you are truly naive, and frankly blind if you honestly think everything is here, working as it is, with no greater power pulling it all together.
I never said anything about faith, kindof curious why you did? Interesting…. It takes no faith to see what is staring you in the face.
LikeLike
Jim,
Agreed that evolution of creatures to adapt is obviously a tool, and that it was created by God. Two things though.
#1 – 99% of anyone talking evolution rejects the notion of a creator being involved, so you’re very much in the minority of people, and not who I’m addressing.
#2 – Even so, the notion that a series of adaptions, chances, and survival of fittest could lead from pretty much nothing, to the complexities of the systems we see, and the universe, I’m sorry, but it’s just plain dumb. It’s like saying if you get a bunch of sand and shake it up, that over some time, eventually a working computer would emerge. The systems we witness, even the most simple in life make the computer look like a complete joke in terms of complexity. The fact that our eyes see, and our spirit perceives beauty, sound, music, emotion…
The fact that we are created in Gods image.. I guess he evolved too?
Hmm… food for thought.
— Dan
LikeLike
To quote:
Although species evolve over time, anyone who has witness the birth of their child, or looked into the micro-systems within our own bodies, or gazed into the vast universe is simply foolish to not recognize God in it.
That can just as easily be said as “Although species evolve over time, anyone who has witnessed the birth of their child, or looked into the micro-systems within our own bodies, or gazed into the vast universe is simply foolish to not recognize The Flying Spaghetti Monster in it.”
Or Puff the Magic dragon. Or any other deity…or no deity at all.
Faith…is subjective
LikeLike
Hi there, Dan!
It’s actually pretty silly and theologically limiting to suggest that someone as powerful as YHWH could not use a tool as complex and wondrous as evolution to create life.
Is there anything God cannot do? (Except sin or fail?)
LikeLike
Evolution is evident in pretty much every living thing. Just something as common as europeans being able to drink milk is a relatively recent change. And man can even influence evolution if you look at how many breeds of dogs there are.
LikeLike
Although species evolve over time, anyone who has witness the birth of their child, or looked into the micro-systems within our own bodies, or gazed into the vast universe is simply foolish to not recognize God in it. Simply said.. but true.
LikeLike
What in hell is “cultural marxism?” Oh, never mind. This is obviously an example from StillObtuseISee (who obviously doesn’t see).
In the case of the giraffe, yes, the neck is very bad design and the laryngeal nerve is just one energy- and matter-wasting pieces of evidence.
Other chunks of evidence, for bad design, and evolution:
1. The neck is too heavy for the giraffe to manage it easily. This weight is necessitated by the methods evolution can musteer to make a long neck on a mammal. The seven neck bones must become large, to stretch the distance, and massive, to support their own weight and the weight of those above. Why not bones with lattices, like birds have? The hummingbird, in stark evolutionary contrast, has 14 bones in its neck. A giraffe with 14 bones could have a much more limber, and lighter neck — give it bird bones, and we’re starting into good design. This produces other issues.
2. The neck is too short to bend down for a drink. Giraffes must splay their legs out to the side to get down to drink water. Alas, this is difficult. Because of the blood pressure issues, and others, many giraffes die getting a drink — they can’t get back up, and the stress kills them, or they drown. Good for the scavengers, bad for the giraffe.
3. Blood flow requires greater specialization of arteries and veins, to get the blood up so high, and to prevent dramatic changes in blood flow that lead to passing out, when the giraffe lowers its head.
4. The heart of the giraffe must be more powerful, to buck against gravity and its own valve system. This limits the life of the beast (but probably allows it to run faster).
5. All mammals, and all fish, have this same laryngeal nerve, doing the same loop. As the film shows, it’s a short, straight run in fish — but as necks develop and get longer, the loop through the blood vessels requires the nerve to get longer and longer. This nerve can be damaged by heart disease and other events in the chest, oddly affecting the larynx above. Ask the Alaska Pipeline people about the dangers of long runs of critical tubes.
Is there any whit of any usefulness for such a run of the nerves through that old gill arch, in any species? No. It provides at best a minor advantage in distance in fish, but in no other species does this nerve run offer any advantage, no reason to be there.
Reverse engineer the thing if you’re a true IDer — tell us what possible use the long run of this vital nerve serves, can you?
LikeLike
Dan, It’s several generations back on your family tree, but yeah, sort of an amoeba-type multi-celled organism is there.
Here’s a crude, but accurate chart:
Here’s the write up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
LikeLike
Well really Dawkins goes too far here and veers into spurious rhetorical games, which is too bad for there is a great underlying point here, that being the commonality of this in all mammals and the evolution from fish..
But to posit that this refutes the notion of “divine design” is specious and fallacious from a strictly logical POV. (And It does a disservice to legitimate scientificdebunking of the ID people for the argument, like their argument, blurs science with broader philosophical issues.
He here indulges in “begging the question”, that is to answer we must affirm assumptions that are not necessarily true and are not prove by his postulates, assert or logic.
Here the issue is whether or not this “Loop” is “bad design”, and the affirmative answer seems to be that no “engineer” would do this. This conceptually assumes that “the divine” is some sort of contemporary “divine electrical engineer” who can be subjected to our judgement, and if the “design” is “bad” by our judgement it disproves this “divine engineers”existence. But from a metaphysical POV–and I mean this in the philosophical sense–has dawkns actually proved his assertion that this is “bad design”? How do we know it is actually ‘”inefficient” give all effects, considerations and contingencies? How can Dawkins validly make such judgements? Well we do not, and he has not. He has not proved any of this. It is a rhetorical slide of hand.
Whatever one thinks about evolution or God, from a purely formal logical standpoint this argument would not get though a first year graduate seminar in any reasonable philosophy course: “begging the question” is an ancient fallacy. Dawkins gets away with it because his acolytes 1) do not have the sophistication to see this failure, 2) really have another agenda in their sights than truth or “science:, and 3) any attempt to point this out is the Marxist/atheist infected demimonde of Academia would be career suicide,
It also carries a strange self referential argument: Evidence of “bad design” is equated with “no design”. This too ls logical fallacious. Is there a “design”, accidental as it may be, or not? If it is merely a accident, they why would there be “efficient designs”? Are there such things? Why does their existence not prove the existence of a “divine plan”? His argument , ironically demands the notion of “design:. Moreover. how would we, as products of these processes, know if it was good or bad design if in fact there was no design? Form where is our knowledge derived? He most certainly does not prove that creation is accidental. The logic uses the notion of “imperfect design:, but design none the less, to say that there is no design.
Too put it either way, his argument rest on a set of tacit metaphysical assumptions that are contradictory to his conclusions. Again, it s a slide of hand.
It would be more reasonable to exhaustively prove, or at least enumerate, why this is “inefficient” given all know facts contingencies , etc, in the light of his epistemological and ontological POV, and the point out that Theology (and not ID which is nether theology or science) needs to be clearer about what is meant by “perfection”. This he has not done, and this because it is beyond the scope of his knowledge or competency. Here he would have to scale back his sensational claims, and, one gathers, this he does to want to do for this sensationalism is really the whole ponit of it all
This, of course, with your simplistic understanding of (philosophical) metaphysics slips right by you. This is a common intellectual failing of Cultural Marxists in general. When the Boomers are finally in the ground and rationality is restored to our intellectual lives, people like Dawkins and Gould will be see for the intellectual frauds that there were.
LikeLike
Cool, so I come from amoeba after all, how exciting.
LikeLike