Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[SirLinksalot]

Rebutting Darwinists

Posted: April 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming dissidents who challenge their assumptions.

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have this in common with Galileo.

I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps my 10 percent was far too low.

Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.

But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news.

Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity. If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity. The demand – "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"– does not disqualify the contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in schools."

Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.

The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.

[CowboyJay]

"Einsten's "God does not play dice" quote concerned quantum mechanics and nothing more."

Yes, it came about while he was trying to solve quantum mechanics problems. Einstein's basic premise is that there must be a solution, because God does not play dice with the Universe.

[Lucky Dog]

From your comment, it appears that you wish to disengage from the discussion. I am sorry you feel so, but so be it, if that is, indeed, your intent.

However, as a parting thought, I would remind you that "reading and being instructed" does not in any sense imply agreement with such reading and instruction after a critical analysis.

Good Day

[Dimensio]

However, as a parting thought, I would remind you that "reading and being instructed" does not in any sense imply agreement with such reading and instruction after a critical analysis.

I do not believe that anyone suggested such a thing. The point made was that you do not appear to be knowledgable regarding the subject that you are criticizing. I am perplexed as to why a number of creationists seem to believe that criticisms of their misstatements regarding the theory of evolution are a result of their lack of acceptance of the validity of the theory rather than their demonstratable ignorance of it.

[ahayes]

I consider gravity to be a product of intelligent design, not an agent of intelligence.

Why, you're practically a theistic evolutionist! They consider natural selection to be product of intelligent design, but they then consider that God put things together well enough to not require periodic miraculous intervention.

[connectthedots]

They are all beliefs, and people can change their minds when confronted with new facts. Only a fool would maintain their previous position in light of newly discovered facts that make a previous position untenable.

The facts simply so not support macro-evolution. The faith required to believe in macro-evolution is far greater than the faith required to believe the truth of the Bible and the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The mere fact that the entire history of the world is measured by the time relationship to the birth of Jesus Christ ought to give even the most skeptical person reason to seriously consider the claims of the Bible.

There are also hundreds, if not thousands of archaeological sites that confirm the historical events and places mentioned in the Bible. Even secular historians of the time confirm the events surrounding the life of Christ.

If God could raise His son from death, He could certainly create man in his current form. What other living being has a soul and can judge right from wrong or determine that the killing of a fellow human is wrong. In the animal kingdom, there is nothing like that.

There is such a huge gap in the intellect and abilities of men and animals, that evolution is incomprehensible on its face. If evolution involves small steps of long periods of time, why are there no other living beings that are even remotely close to humans in intellect of abilities?

This alone is enough for any reasonable person to toss the ToE onto the ash heap of history.

Almost all people have enough intelligence to see that this must be true. It is not lack of facts that prevent some people from being able to accept the obvious; it is an unwillingness to consider or admit that there is a God who is the creator of the universe. If one does, there is a right and wrong; a truth and a lie; good and evil, etc. It also means there are standards by which we must strive to live our lives and that we will be held accountable for what we believe and do. Some people simply don't want to acknowledge the truth.

You would also be wise not to confuse the acts of some Christians with the truth and reality of God and the Bible. Despite the many failings of various Christians throughout history, the great steps of progress throughout the world came as a direct efforts of Christians to make this world a better place for all men. The end of slavery is just one obvious example. anyone who thinks slavery would have ended without the actions of Christians throughout the world is ignorant of history related to slavery.

[Tokra]

Alter Kaker is relating the bizarro worldview of SirLinksalot, not expressing his own opinion on the matter.

In the words of Emily Littella - "Never mind."

[Fester Chugabrew]

And evolution predicted where to look for the recently found fish fossils . . .

Show me the prediction and tell me why evolution would make such a prediction as opposed to intelligent design or common sense. Also tell me how this prediction is not post hoc when the placement of fossil finds is already preconceived.

[Lucky Dog]

From post 577 Thatcherite

How this argument [arbitrary sexual preference choice as the method of selection] logically any different from that of the creationists? It appears that you have merely substituted arbitrary female choice for the arbitrary choice of a deity.

Occam's Razor. … The thing about the arbitrary female choice as opposed to the arbitrary choice of deity is that it doesn't involve an additional unnecessary entity.

I have no quarrel with the principle of Occam's Razor. Rather the issue is with whether or not the proposed arbitrary selection process fits within the basic natural selection premise of evolution, i.e., survival of the fittest. (To avoid confusion over semantics, let me stipulate by “fittest” I am referring to best able to function in the environmental selection pressure.)

From post 583 Deminso

… The point made was that you do not appear to be knowledgable regarding the subject that you are criticizing...

Please correct the following if there are errors concerning the theory of evolution”

From post 209: Evolution is premised upon the basic propositions of mutation of organisms and environmental natural selection of those mutated organisms for enhanced survival and/or propagation.

From post 246: …Logically, if there is no natural selection pressure, the theory of evolution fails miserably because then the entire inheritance of “beneficial” characteristics to survival becomes purely random. If the arising of a trait is purely random, then the appearance of different species is, likewise, purely random and there is no explanation beyond chance.

From post 254: As I understand the basic premise of evolution, it is mutations that are favored by natural selection pressures will be passed on to succeeding generations (and the corollary that those detrimental will cause the demise of the individual and not be passed). The accumulation of enough of these “favorable” mutations leads to the emergences of a new species…

From post 257: By observation, there are species currently in existence that are nominally evolutionary “precursors” of those that came at later times ostensibly as a result of the accumulation of enough mutations in the “gene pool” to have created these new species. By these observations, on can conclude that one of the “gene pools” did not accumulate mutations and another did.

From post 402: In the case I was proposing, I merely wished to determine if a sufficiently strong, statistical correlation exists among mutation rate, natural selection pressure and emergence of new species. Since such a goal is merely a plausibility estimate, it requires only a modest degree of accuracy.

…If there are no reasonably stronger correlations among mutation rate, natural selection pressure and new species emergence that your postulated “butterfly effect,” then it would seem that those who wish to challenge the validity of the theory are justified in their doubts.

From post 433: … if speciation occurs without sufficient, environmental, natural selection pressure (creating a survival benefit for certain mutations), those critics who maintain that the theory of evolution is flawed have huge traction for their contention.

[Tribune7]

bump

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes, I am practically a theistic evolutionist. I consider intelligent design to be evident wherever the universe is intelligible, and I consider it to be fairly evident that the universe changes over time. As for periodic miraculous intervention, science is unable to scientifically determine the difference between miraculous and non-miraculous phenomena. The occurrence of physical anomalies is well attested throughout history, so there is nothing unnatural about miracles, and it could very well be there is nothing natural about the force of gravity. When the resurrection of the dead takes place at the last day, it will be a physical, bodily, scientifically verifiable resurrection, just as the presence of an intelligible universe is a physical, scientifically verifiable result of the creative acts of God.

[Constantine XIII]

Just because a man is a Christian doesn't mean that he has to believe in what Dr. Behe preaches. :P

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes, I am practically a theistic evolutionist."

Except for the fact you are an avowed YEC.

[Fester Chugabrew]

How does being a YEC negate being a theistic evolutionist? Is it a requirement of theistic evolutionists to reject the accuracy and authority of biblical texts?

[Thatcherite]

I have no quarrel with the principle of Occam's Razor. Rather the issue is with whether or not the proposed arbitrary selection process fits within the basic natural selection premise of evolution, i.e., survival of the fittest. (To avoid confusion over semantics, let me stipulate by “fittest” I am referring to best able to function in the environmental selection pressure.)

Yes it does. Sexual preference for certain features of the opposite sex is part of the environment. Provided the penalty in survivability is not too great it has been shown that positive feedback loops can cause the selection of otherwise non-optimal features (perhaps a male bird's tail that is longer than is necessary for aerodynamic reasons). IIRC runaway traits of this kind prosper most markedly in species where the investment in offspring varies significantly between male and female.

if speciation occurs without sufficient, environmental, natural selection pressure (creating a survival benefit for certain mutations), those critics who maintain that the theory of evolution is flawed have huge traction for their contention.

Why? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Species evolve regardless of selection pressure. Genetically isolated groups of the same species will eventually speciate even if both groups face extremely similar environments. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution, but a prediction of it. I haven't responded to all of your points because several of them appear to be repetitions of the same misunderstanding.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"How does being a YEC negate being a theistic evolutionist?"

Because you don't agree with anything that evolution says, oh, like the non-fixity of species, or common descent. That's why.

"Is it a requirement of theistic evolutionists to reject the accuracy and authority of biblical texts?"

No, but you can't take Genesis literally and be an evolutionist of any stripe.

[Thatcherite]

No, but you can't take Genesis literally and be an evolutionist of any stripe.

Except when you insist on rates of evolution millions of times greater than anything that has been observed in order to explain how the current diversity of species could have descended from the animals on the ark, and to explain how the genetic variation of species doesn't show a bottleneck on a Biblical timeline. ;)

[stands2reason]

Then why would Stalin say that after reading Darwin, he became an atheist?

Stalin was mentally disturbed. I can't judge any scientific theory by what he said.

Here's one for you. Why do I believe that I have an immortal soul even though I accept the evidence for evolution? According to your logic, I shouldn't.

[stands2reason]

What is interesting is that the character and emotional tenor of nonEvos is a factor for Evos.

Why would you find that interesting? It's hardly an uncommon phenomenon.

Did you know the character and tenor of DUmmies is a factor for conservatives? There's a daily thread on it by PJComix.

[Dimensio]

Show me the prediction and tell me why evolution would make such a prediction as opposed to intelligent design or common sense

Please explain why "Intelligent Design" or "common sense" without knowledge of evolution would predict the fossil find.

Also tell me how this prediction is not post hoc when the placement of fossil finds is already preconceived.

A "post hoc" prediction is one made after the fact. In this case, it was predicted that a fossil of a specific type would be found in a specific location, and then later a fossil of that type was found in that location. I do not see how any rational individual could consider the prediction to be "post hoc".

[ahayes]

Does it make it post hoc if they were prescient?