Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

[Dimensio]

I do not have time right now to totally get into this argument, but Einstein's thoery of "The Big Bang" in many ways goes totally against evolution.

WHAT?!?

How, exactly, does a theory on the origins of the cosmos contradict the theory of evolution? There is no logical connection whatsoever.

I understand why you won't get into the argument. It's a total fabrication, there's no contradiction whatsoever, but you think that it makes you sound smart to make the claim.

Lewis is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. No, he was not a biologist, but his thoughts and opinions have been considered among the most inlighting and thoughtful of any in the last century.

I still wouldn't have trusted him to perform open-heart surgery. A person can be brilliant without being an expert in a specific field. There is no evidence to suggest that CS Lewis was a well-researched biologist. As such, he has no credibility on the issue of evolution.

And you are absolutely wrong if you think "life from non-life" has nothing to do with macro-evolution. "Life" had to evolve!!! according to Darwin.

So? How life came into existence has no bearing on "life evolving". The ultimate origins of life has absolutely no relevance to the theory of evolution. Only those ignorant of the theory or fundamentally dishonest make such a claim.

If life has no purpose (as evolution suggests)

Evolution suggests no such thing.

then why do humans spend their lives trying to prove its purpose.

Because humans feel more comfortable if they can claim to have easy answers.

[Dimensio]

Yeah, there was that, too. I figured that if he was so confused as to think that the Big Bang somehow contradicts evolution, the matter of who actually came up with the theory was a much less important topic.

[GarySpFc]

Clearly what you are implying with this and other quotes here is that one person speaks for an entire group with his statements. Does Arlen Specter speak for the entire Republican Party? Does Ken Ham speak for all of the creationists? You are a walking logical fallacy my friend, and you need to re-evaluate your entire argument, because it suffers from many holes (not just this, but also the fact that you obviously haven't checked your sources). You say you have, but if you had read the talk.origins webpage on Patterson's quote, you would have found it was incorrectly quoted. So did you REALLY check all of your sources? Or was that a lie?

PatrickHenry asked for one quote to examine, and I provided several quotes by one person. William Provine was one of the most highly respected sources in biology until his demise. Furthermore, I have examined the quotes, and posted the sources. If you want to disputre them, then feel free to post your arguments regardins each and every one.

[cainin04]

um, yes, it would be called the Big Bang Theory.

[Dimensio]

But, if it does not, then the Creation theoy should certainly be taught!!!

What is the "creation theory"? What does it predict, how can it be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify it?

[NJ_gent]

"According to the evolutionists, the universe and life originated out of nothing,"

Funny, I seem to remember reading the same thing in the book of Genesis.

"means nothing, and has no purpose."

Please point to the specific line in Darwin's works which states this. Or, please point to the line in any decent journal of science which states this. You can infer something all you like, but don't try to pretend that someone has said it.

[Dimensio]

The Bible claims God as its author.

So can any book.

The Bible has proven itself reliable through its scientific accuracy, prophetic fulfillment, durability and archeaology.

You mean the bit about rabbits chewing cud, or grasshoppers having four legs?

No, I was kidding with you, were you at the end of the line when Evolution passed out "humor?" Not everything in the Bible is to be take literally.

But the Genesis account is to be taken literally. Or is it? I'm confused.

[cainin04]

Ok, if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then this whole arguemnt does not matter!! The writer of the article was saying that "creation" should not be thought because we have evolution!!! That was the original point.

If evolution has nothing to do with life's beginnings, you need to argue with the writer of the story, not me.

[narby]

That's a nice feed back loop example. Creationists prattle all kinds of idiocy as things about "evolution" they don't believe. Then someone who understands the subject points out that their argument doesn't apply. Then the Creationist pokes fun saying "Evolutionists argument in a NUTshell 'Evolution is not about (fill in the blank)'".

Maybe I can say all kinds of dumb stuff about the Bible that you can correct. And then I can say is "Believers argument in a NUTshell 'the Bible is not about (fill in the blank)'".

I think it's funny.......

[GarySpFc]

His Phd happens to be in American Studies. Perhaps I am missing how that qualifies his opinions concerning biology. Enlighten me, please.

Jack Cashill's argument was with the misquotes by scientists of the Pope's position on evolution at the Kansas Board of Education meeting. It appears you are suggesting a Ph.D. is not qualified to write when scientists misquote the Pope.

[puroresu]

TYPO ALERT: In my post, "led over" should be "led over time to"

[Fester Chugabrew]

If your understanding of the theory of evolution . . .

I had no idea there is a singular "theory of evolution." Would you please explain what it is? I would also like to know, since it is apparently a "theory," what part of it is open to question.

[orionblamblam]

> The Bible claims God as its author.

So does the Koran.

[Killing Time]

but Einstein's theory of "The Big Bang"

You are joking? Aren't you?

Lewis is one of the greatest thinkers of our time

and its always Winter but never Christmas on these threads

[stremba]

You really need to learn what the theory of evolution actually says before you start criticizing it. The theory of evolution actually only deals with how the gene pool of populations of organisms changes as a result of differential reproductive capacity. There can be no gene pool, no populations, and no reproduction, let alone differential reproductive capacity before life began. Your (and other creationists') argument that evolution must deal with the origin of life is equivalent to saying that meteorology must deal with the origin of the earth's atmosphere. Just as it is unnecessary to understand where the atmosphere came from to understand meteorology, it is unnecessary to understand where life came from to understand the process of evolution. It is true that evolution is compatible with creationism, and I personally have espoused this belief on other threads. I also have stated that creationism is definitely not science and should not be taught in science classes. There are scientific hypotheses about the origin of life. If we must teach where life came from in science, these would be the appropriate ideas to teach. It would be appropriate to point out the speculative nature of these hypotheses. However, if we taught scientific method properly, it would be unnecessary to do so, however, as students would understand what is meant by theory, hypothesis, etc.

[r9etb]

Can you give me another example of an 'intuitive sense' which has scientific validity, but yet can't be expressed algorithmically?

It's possible that you misunderstood my point, which is simply that we humans (designers ourselves) tend to think of things in terms of how we might design them.

What is certain, however, is that I don't understand your question.

And when you're done, explain to me why the putative designer so often made completely independent designs for functionally very similar parts in different groups of animals, while simultaneously using similar designs for functionally very different parts within the same group.

You probably make things, right? If so, haven't you ever achieved the same functionality with a different design? I know I have. Likewise, I have also used a similar design feature to perform very different tasks -- just as you probably have.

At root, your questions reduce to quibbles about design choices, rather than an argument against the possibility of a designer.

[Right Wing Professor]

Natural selection is the process through which evolutionary changes are allegedly preserved, if they occur, but the fact that natural selection occurs doesn't prove evolutionary changes occur.

This is confusng 'mutation' with 'evolutionary changes'. Evolution is mutation followed by natural selction; it is not merely mutation.

Natural selection explains why creatures become extinct, not how they allegedly evolve.

Natural selction most certainly explains why bacterial populations develop antibiotic resistance.

We observe extinction occuring all the time, but never observe evolution.

It will be ironic if you happen to contract a multiply-resistant bacterial infection, because you'll have been killed by what you claim has never been observed.

[SC DOC]

Given the absurd number of times bacteria have reproduced in the last 100+ years that we've been observing them (millions given the rapid rate of reproduction), how many new bacterial species have been seen? Any?

MRSA

[narby]

I had no idea there is a singular "theory of evolution." Would you please explain what it is? I would also like to know, since it is apparently a "theory," what part of it is open to question.

I had no idea there was a singular "Creator". If the Intellegent Design Theory gains any traction, they'll soon have to figure out if the fish designer was different from the bacteria designer and the virus designer......

Which one did Zeus design???

[stremba]

I am curious. What observation would actually DISPROVE intelligent design?