�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Scientific Creation Evidence Discredits Evolution - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Need2Know
 Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:40 am |
|
|
|
Scientific Creation Evidence Discredits Evolution
Intelligent Design - Machines
Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
Intelligent Design - Life
Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life, scientists have developed the theory of evolution in an effort to explain the origin of life via spontaneous generation. This "scientific" theory is very distinctive. Commonly, scientists observe data, interpret the data, and then formulate conclusions based upon that data. Yet, evolutionists have formulated their "scientific" conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary.
Intelligent Design - Education
Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. Since the reemergence of evolutionary thought in the last two hundred years (popularized by Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859), evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory. Nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation. And yet, curiously, evolutionary thought prevails in the mainstream. Thus, evolutionary "scientists" have disposed of true science, and replaced it with philosophy and imagination. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138). Since the beginning of the modern evolutionary movement, quite a few fraudulent evidences in favor of evolution have been submitted and remain in the textbooks, despite their exposure as blatant deceptions. Ernst Haeckel's work is an appropriate example. Haeckel, a German embryologist, altered drawings of various animal and human embryos, making them nearly identical. He presented his altered pictures as evidence for evolution between species, and used them as a platform to successfully promote evolution. In 1874, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as frauds by renowned embryologist Wilhelm His. Shortly thereafter, Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university. Yet his fallacious drawings of nearly identical embryos are still in science textbooks over 100 years later as evidence for evolution! Those drawings are being taught to kids in school today as evidence for evolution. Why? Why not present real evidence? Because there is none! David M. Raup, an evolutionist, freely admits, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." ("Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, pg. 289). It seems that "pure fantasy" is the politically correct term for "calculated lies."
Intelligent Design - DNA
An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.
Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter?
Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns.
Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.
And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.
What is a Creationist?
In order to understand what makes someone a Creationist, it is important to understand that there are essentially two competing schools of thought as to the origin of the earth and the human beings who populate it. The first is creation and the second is evolution. Creation is based upon a doctrine from the Bible "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Evolution was popularized by the writing of a book by Charles Darwin called "Origin of the Species," however, Darwin was not the first propagandist for this ideology. Those who adhere to the theory of evolution are called "evolutionists." Evolution must be believed by faith for there is no written account, no eyewitnesses, and no viable proof that this theory is correct. It is based upon suppositions and the humanistic evaluation of man as to how things "may" have come about.
Those that believe in the biblical account of creation are called Creationists. Therefore, the term "creationist" refers to one who ascribes to the biblical truth that God created heaven and earth. It is said that a creationist is one that uses blind faith in order to believe that God created all that we call earth. However, the truth is that the Bible gives an account that was recorded through handed-down facts and those facts were then complied into what we now know as the book of Genesis. This creation "record" has been preserved down through the ages.
The Creationist believes in order, design, and therefore an ultimate designer. This view has been constantly born out by the new discoveries of the last century of which the genome is just one. This intricate blueprint, that is unique to each human individual and indeed is the make up of all living organisms, could not be formed by chance or accident. Therefore, a creationist is one who trusts in the veracity of God as creator rather than primeval soup as the origin of life on earth.
Creation Evidence - The Great Debate of Origins
It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver.
Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Creation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples:
Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.
Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.
Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:59 am |
|
|
|
The Scientist's Views:
Phillip Johnson:
I sometimes wonder why anybody talks about anything else. Because this is the most interesting topic there is. Where did we come from? How did we get here? What brought us into existence? What is our relationship to reality as a whole?
The argument for intelligent design is based upon observation of the facts. Now that's my definition of good science. It's observation of the facts. And when you observe the facts, as Michael Behe has done, you observe this incredible pattern of interrelated complexity...
Paul Nelson
For Charles Darwin, natural selection explained the appearance of design without a designer. There was no longer any need to invoke an intelligent cause for the complexity of life. In effect, natural selection became a kind of designer substitute.
When we came together at Pajaro Dunes we certainly didn't agree on everything, but we did share a real dissatisfaction with the mechanism of natural selection and the role that it was playing in biological explanation.
The co-option argument doesn't explain this. You see, in order to construct that flagellar mechanism - or the tens of thousands of other such mechanisms in the cell - you require other machines to regulate the assembly in those structures. And those mechanisms, themselves, require machines for their assembly.
When I look at molecular machines, or the incredibly complex process by which cells divide, I want to ask, 'is it possible that these things had an intelligence behind them? That there was a plan and a purpose to this structure?'
Stephen Meyer
It's part of our knowledge base that intelligent agents can produce information-rich systems… so the argument is not based on what we don't know, but its based on what we do know about the cause and effect structure of the world.
We know, at present, there is no materialistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self- organizational processes, not pure chance. But we do know of a cause that is capable of producing information and that is intelligence. And so when people infer design from the presence of information in DNA, they're effectively making what's called (in the historical sciences) an inference to the best explanation.
So when we find an information-rich system in the cell, in the DNA molecule specifically, we can infer that intelligence played a role in the origin of that system, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence.
Michael Behe
It's really interesting to notice that the more we know about life and the more we know about biology, the more problems Darwinism has, and the more design becomes apparent.
...for the longest time, I believed that Darwinian evolution explained what we saw in biology. Not because I saw how it could actually explain it, but because I was told that it did explain it. In schools I was taught Darwinian biology.
And through college and graduate school, I was in an atmosphere which just assumed that Darwinian evolution explained biology and, again, I didn't have any reason to doubt it.
It wasn't until about ten years ago, that I read a book called, "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis," (critique) by a geneticist by the name of Michael Denton (an Australian). And he put forward a lot of scientific arguments against Darwinian theory that I had never heard before.
...and the arguments, seemed pretty convincing. And, at that point, I started to get a bit angry because I thought I was being led down the primrose path. Here were a number of very good arguments... and I had gone through a doctoral program in biochemistry, became a faculty member... and I had never even heard of these things. And so, from that point on, I became very interested in the question of evolution and since have decided the Darwinian processes are not the whole the explanation for life.
William Dembski
I came to this trying to look at how do we reason about design. What are the logical moves that we have to go through in order to come to a conclusion of design?
And, what I am trying to do...is to establish reliable, empirical, scientifically rigorous criteria for deciding whether something is, in fact, designed.
I was looking at the logic of it, and what I found was that you need improbability and you need specification, the right sort of pattern...
Jonathan Wells
Darwin wanted to explain everything in the history of life in terms of undesigned, unintelligent natural processes.
...and when he looked for an explanation, what he found was that a process he could observe in domestic populations also operates in the wild.
Now, Darwin, himself, was very familiar with domestic breeding. He studies pigeon breeding, and he knew that - for centuries - human breeders had been able to make dramatic changes in populations by selecting only certain individuals to breed. Darwin really suggested that this same process operates in the wild...
Scott Minnich
Howard Berg at Harvard has labeled it [the flagellar motor] the most efficient machine in the universe. These machines, some of them, are running at 100,000 rpms. And are hard-wired into a signal transduction or sensory mechanism so that it's getting feedback from the environment.
The bacterial flagellum - two gears forward and reverse, water-cooled, proton motive force. It has a stator, it has a rotor, it has a U-joint, it has a drive shaft, it has a propeller. And they function as these parts of machines...
It's not convenient that we give them these names. It's truly their function.
Irreducible complexity was coined by Mike Behe in describing these molecular machines. Basically, what it says, is that you have multicomponent parts to any organelle or system within a cell…all of which are necessary for function. That is, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Wether earthly life initially originated on a drawing board or by chance does not mean that there is no such thing as an evolutionary process that was and is going on.. afaik darwin didn't dive too deep into the issue of what booted life.. odd debate, why is this being polarised?
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5957
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:49 am |
|
|
|
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution
Sean D. Pitman, M.D.
© November 2006
Almost everyone has heard the children's story by Hans Christian Andersen entitled, "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a very interesting story about human nature. When the Emperor parades around in clothes that are invisible no one says anything because everybody thinks that if they cannot see the clothes that they are stupid, ignorant, or insane. . . or at least others will think that they are. The farce continues until a child exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
This paper deals specifically with the theory of evolution and the hold that this theory has taken upon the scientific community as well as the popular imagination. The theory of evolution has become so popular and so pervasive that it is difficult for anyone to question it without being branded as, "ignorant, stupid, or insane." 1 The passion of those who hold such views testifies to their firm belief in evolution as "more than a theory." So why don't I get it? What is wrong with me?
Some might suggest that I am too biased by my upbringing or religious background to see the truth of the theory of evolution. Certainly it is true that I am human, prone to bias. But, at least I am aware of this and really do desire to know the truth - wherever it may lead.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method and in its power to increase human knowledge of all knowable truth concerning the world outside the mind - to include "religious" ideas when those ideas make some sort of claim about some force acting on physical things around or within us with intelligent or deliberate intent.
Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found. Since no theory is ever fully proven by the scientific method, no one should ever consider any theory or even "fact" above all question. When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma. Often the thought crosses my mind that scientists are just as fervent and religious in their thinking as any other church-going community. The only difference is the object of worship.
I'm not saying that a little religious zeal is a bad thing - even for scientists. Many truths are very important and should be defended. However, human ideas of "truth" are not or at least should not be above all question. In fact, truth is made all the more clear when it is challenged. Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it? The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist. And yet, the scientific method really does not support the use of any "a priori" assumptions when evaluating the potential truthfulness of any hypothesis or theory. The position that the mindless non-deliberate processes of nature are the only types of potentially "natural" forces that can possibly be considered when it comes to explaining the origin and diversity of life on this planet is not a requirement of the scientific method, but is rather a philosophical position.
It all boils down to what scientists define as "natural" verses "supernatural". The funny thing is, scientists do theorize the involvement of intelligent minds all the time when it comes to forensic investigations or searches for extraterrestrial intelligence - since these intelligences would be "natural". Why then is the origin of life any different? Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet? Isn't it at least theoretically possible that some very intelligent yet "natural" mind might have been behind the origin of life on this planet? How is this possibility beyond the realm of scientific investigation?
Consider the form of a humble amorphous rock. Does its form give evidence of deliberate design over a mindless cause? Humans are in fact capable of designing amorphous rocks, but so are very lowly mindless randomly acting natural processes. The same is true if I were to walk by a house in the morning and see that it had a broken window. In this case I could quite rationally hypothesize either a mindless non-deliberate cause (i.e., a tree limb, strong gust of wind, hail from a storm, etc) or a deliberate intelligent cause (i.e., a robber, a kid with rock or pellet gun, etc). However, if I were to walk by that same house later in the day and find that this same window had been repaired, how easy would it be for me to hypothesize a random mindless process as a cause? The same thing could be said for analyzing symmetrically intricate crop circles in England or a box of otherwise identical red and white marbles where all the red marbles are on the same side of the box.
This line of reasoning might seem fairly convincing if not for the fact that many scientists take on an, "a priori commitment to materialism."2 - or at least what they define as materialism. What they really do is take on a commitment to an ultimately non-intelligent non-deliberate cause for everything that exists. This is what is meant by the word "materialism". The problem with this notion is that high level information systems, to include those that reach the level of "intelligent minds" do in fact exist and these systems are indeed capable of creative abilities that far exceed those of low-level randomly acting mindless forces of nature. Why then do scientists assume, from the very start, that the ultimate cause of the phenomenon of "life" was, without question, non-deliberate?
Certainly one might conclude that the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of one position over another after extensive testing is done, but the scientific method necessitates no prior commitment to outcome of an intelligent vs. a non-intelligent cause, even an ultimate cause, before the outcome is actually tested. Scientists do seem to agree on this point, and yet many of them still feel "forced by an a priori adherence to material [i.e., mindless or randomly acting] causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." Many go on to explain that "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."2
And there it is - - Ultimately it is all about the concept of "God". No answer can be "God probably did it" for a scientist, by definition, because God is defined as being non-materialistic or outside of Nature. Therefore, scientists commonly argue that God, if he even exists, is beyond the detection of science - that he cannot be ruled in or out of any equation.
Does this make any sense? Certainly, scientists are correct in one respect. If an all-powerful God wished to hide from us, he most certainly could do that - no doubt. However, what if God wished to reveal himself through the physical world? Would it then be impossible to detect him simply because he is God and God is defined as undetectable? Would a God who is actually trying to be recognized as enormously powerful and intelligent actually be harder to identify than an intelligent and powerful "alien" civilization sending radiosignals to our planet?
It seems as though most scientists are uneasy with any theory that does not have its basis in the workings of a mindless nature for fear that the only alternative to this position, intelligent design, might bring back the darkness of superstition. However, many of these same scientists hope to find evidence, even historically based evidence, of intelligent life in the universe beyond our own world. Even within our own world, entire scientific disciplines, such as forensic science, are based on discovering the workings of purpose and intelligence. Clearly then, scientists seem quite confident in their abilities to detect intelligent activity as long as it has nothing to do with the origin of life or the fundamental workings of the universe and it isn't given the label of "God".
It seems then that, "Design is ruled out not because it has been shown to be false but because science itself has been defined as applied materialistic [or mindless cause] philosophy."3 While it is true that science can only work with material phenomena, it is not true that only mindless, non-deliberate, or random forces must be considered as causes, a priori, for all material phenomena. That notion just isn't part of the scientific method. This is a philosophical notion, not scientific one.
Yet, this disguised religious philosophy has taken the scientific community by storm. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status. Who dares question it or openly admit that they do not see the emperor's clothes without putting their reputations and, on occasion, even their careers in jeopardy? I for one have been honestly looking for the emperor's clothes for some time now. But, the more I look the more naked he gets.
Surprisingly, I am not alone in my blindness. A number of very highly educated men and women of science have and are openly questioning the sacred status of the theory of evolution. Of course, we may be too ignorant, stupid, or insane to see the rich clothes that are right there before our very eyes. However, never underestimate the "crazy" or the "blind". History has often shown that those who were crazy and blind in their own day turned out to be right after all.
1. Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "Put Your Money on Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A., "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34.
2. Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.
3. Nany Pearcey, "We're Not in Kansas Anymore - Why secular scientists and media can't admit that Darwinism might be wrong", Christianity Today, May 22, 2000 ( http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm )
Last edited by Need2Know on Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:52 am |
|
|
|
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:27 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | Wether earthly life initially originated on a drawing board or by chance does not mean that there is no such thing as an evolutionary process that was and is going on.. afaik darwin didn't dive too deep into the issue of what booted life.. odd debate, why is this being polarised? |
This is not meant to polarize at all; scientists look for facts and the facts seem to discredit one very popular and largely unchallenged "theory" of the origins of life while the other has very solid, scientific facts to back it up. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Last edited by Need2Know on Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.pdf
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: | | This is not meant to polarize at all; scientists look for facts and the facts seem to discredit one very popular and largely unchallenged "theory" of the origins of life while the other has very solid, scientific facts to back it up. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." |
I don't see how a creationist theory on the origin of life discredits darwinian theory of the origin of current species.. or the other way around..
LOL@ the bit about the big bang (and other references to cosmology), it is FOS..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5957
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Trillions upon Trillions of Years
A non-beneficial gap of just a couple dozen specific residues required at a specific position in the genome may not sound like much at first glance, but such a gap would literally take trillions upon trillions of years of average time for a population of all the bacteria on Earth (~1030 individuals) to cross (see calculation in appendix below). In fact, not a single evolutionary step proposed by Matzke or anyone else has ever been demonstrated to be "crossable" in any laboratory experiment - - not one. Without the ability to test such stories in the laboratory, they are simply not falsifiable and therefore are, by definition, not supported by scientific method. It may seems strange for many to even consider this, but such statements concerning the evolution of complex functions, on the order of flagellar system complexity, are not scientific at all - they aren't even theory. At the very best they are untested and perhaps untestable propositions. Simply put, these "stories" about flagellar evolution are just that - - fairytale stories. And, when examined in closer detail, they don't even look good on paper.
It just seems a bit more complicated than Matzke and other evolutionary scientists seem to be letting on. Consider this most interesting conclusion of Lynn Margulis, also noted in an interesting review of Matzke's work by William Dembski:
"Like a sugary snack that temporarily satisfies our appetite but deprives us of more nutritious foods, neo-Darwinism sates intellectual curiosity with abstractions bereft of actual details -- whether metabolic, biochemical, ecological, or of natural history." (Acquiring Genomes, p. 103.)13
Last edited by Need2Know on Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:18 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
I don't see how a creationist theory on the origin of life discredits darwinian theory of the origin of current species.. or the other way around..
LOL@ the bit about the big bang (and other references to cosmology), it is FOS.. |
Read what is posted and make up your own mind.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far. |
Complete and utter BS.. there is even something called adptive mutation as observed in the abundantly available E.coli bacteria..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5957
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:35 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: | | Read what is posted and make up your own mind. |
Like .. that there are still some holes our knowledge how variations come to be.. i know, but I am not going to let some nutters push an infantile image of a G-d behind a drwaing board on me..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5957
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:36 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | Quote: | | However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far. |
Complete and utter BS.. there is even something called adptive mutation as observed in the abundantly available E.coli bacteria.. |
Where has that been proven?
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
Like .. that there are still some holes our knowledge how variations come to be.. i know, but I am not going to let some nutters push an infantile image of a G-d behind a drwaing board on me.. |
"pushing an infantile image of God behind a drawing board" is not what I see; what I see is a very valid, scientific argument that says Darwin's theory is flawed and that there is abundant evidence all around us that there is, in fact, an intelligent design to life and to its origins.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
"pushing an infantile image of God behind a drawing board" is not what I see; what I see is a very valid, scientific argument that says Darwin's theory is flawed and that there is abundant evidence all around us that there is, in fact, an intelligent design to life and to its origins. |
Yeah .. I know darwin is full of flaws.. his stuff is from a century ago, but modern day evolutionary biology is certainly not fringe science.. it is very good at explaining a lot of things about the origin of species..
where life itself originated isn't fully explained yet .. and that it was random or by design alone is no satisfying explaination for me.
I have my ideas, but I am not going to try to explain how I unify a Karaite and an Atheist in a single person.. RU is not the place to write a 900 page book
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5957
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SavannahStar
Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
Like .. that there are still some holes our knowledge how variations come to be.. i know, but I am not going to let some nutters push an infantile image of a G-d behind a drwaing board on me.. |
|
|
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 20786
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.
Geneticist Spencer Wells, here meeting an African village elder, says the study tells "truly an epic drama."
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.
"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence.
"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."
Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.
The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations before the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.
Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"
Today, more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
