Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

It's back-to-school time. That means school supplies, clothes, packing lunches and the annual battle over what can be taught.

The Cobb County, Ga., School Board voted unanimously Aug. 22 to consider a pluralistic approach to the origin of the human race, rather than the mandated theory of evolution. The board will review a proposal which says the district "believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species."

Immediately, pro-evolution forces jumped from their trees and started behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. Godzilla forbid! (This is the closest one may get to mentioning "God" in such a discussion, lest the ACLU intervene, which it has threatened to do in Cobb County, should the school board commit academic freedom. God may be mentioned if His Name modifies "damn." The First Amendment's free speech clause protects such an utterance, we are told by the ACLU. The same First Amendment, according to their twisted logic, allegedly prohibits speaking well of God.)

What do evolutionists fear? If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow students to decide which view makes more sense? At the very least, presenting both sides would allow them to better understand the two views. Pro-evolution forces say (and they are saying it again in Cobb County) that no "reputable scientist" believes in the creation model. That is demonstrably untrue. No less a pro-evolution source than Science Digest noted in 1979 that, "scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities . . . Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin.")

In the last 30 years, there's been a wave of books by scientists who do not hold to a Christian-apologetic view on the origins of humanity but who have examined the underpinnings of evolutionary theory and found them to be increasingly suspect. Those who claim no "reputable scientist" holds to a creation model of the universe must want to strip credentials from such giants as Johann Kepler (1571-1630), the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: " . . . the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Who would argue that these and many other scientists were ignorant about science because they believed in God? Contemporary evolutionists who do so are practicing intellectual slander. Anything involving God, or His works, they believe, is to be censored because humankind must only study ideas it comes up with apart from any other influence. Such thinking led to the Holocaust, communism and a host of other evils conjured up by the deceitful and wicked mind of uncontrolled Man.

There are only two models for the origin of humans: evolution and creation. If creation occurred, it did so just once and there will be no "second acts." If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed. Both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be observed or repeated.

Why are believers in one model -- evolution -- seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It's because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.

The parallel views should be taught in Cobb County, Ga., and everywhere else, and let the most persuasive evidence win.

Like C.S. Lewis wrote, if there is even a colorable claim that a single human rose from the dead, then any sensible human would make his life's goal the determination of whether that claim were true or not. The fact that the original disciples all, except one, were put to death rather than recant the resurrection is at least a colorable claim. Therefore, a true scientist would explore not only the outer world, but also the inner one. Your reply connotes that you haven't the personal will or strength to seek God in a manner in which He will prove to you His existence. One must want that proof above all other things before it will be granted. Your joke proves you are not ready for such a reward.

The true scientist can only test what is testable. Faith, by definition, cannot be studied scientificly. Believing in something neither makes it true nor false.

Ad hominem attacks only show that you don't practice what you preach. They provide nothing toward the arguement. Judge not lest ye be judged.

That's an interesting theory, but I feel that for the forseeable future, those who can't afford selective gene therepy far outnumber those who can. Additionally, they are breeding at a much higher rate than those who might use that service.

We already test for genetic flaws prenatally. The next step will be fixing them. No reason simple fixes should be expensive and there's always Uncle Sugar making the rest of us pay for the losers anyway. The millionaire crowd will be paying for new genetic sculpting in place of cosmetic surgery, the billionaires will be experimenting with their designed children, and the losers always lose in the end anyway.

And, or course, there will be a few madmen who will pick and choose the permanent losers by releasing genetically target diseases. And weapons are always easier to design than cures.

Gosh, what fun awaits us all.

Mutation is a single mechanism of variation. There are others.

I have explained about mutations a few times. Let's remember that almost all mutations prove to be bad. You cannot change a system as complex as a living organism by random means.

Sexual reproduction comes to mind.

Sexual reproduction just mixes the genes which already exist in a species, it does not create new species. Also to say that an entire species will gradually mutate together into another species is ludicrous.

It helps to also not forget that neutral mutations may occur generations before they become advantageous.

Maybe, could be, perhaps are not scientific terms. I keep asking for examples, real examples of favorable mutations which increase complexity (as evolution requires) I never hear any examples.

Alternatively, inconsequential or even destructive mutations, which may prove deleterious in normal conditions may suddenly enable a critter to expand into a previously inaccessible niche (e.g. leucopathy and snow-covered terrain).

Except that the bearers of that deleterious trait would be long dead by then and the dead do not reproduce.

I would also like to point out that you have yet to provide evidence for a creator or designer.

I already did in post# 549, and you have not been able to refute a word of it, here it is again:

Nice rhetoric, but totally disproved by modern science. There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).

The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Let's remember that almost all mutations prove to be bad.

Relevant portions in bold. Would you call albinism a mutation advantageous in extreme latitudes?

to say that an entire species will gradually mutate together into another species is ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous to suggest that changes in selection pressure cause a population to change. I would suggest it is rather the rule than the exception. After all, without a breeding population, critters can't adapt, they die.

If a climate changes from wet to dry, the bird populations in the region will find new wet regions, adapt to the dry conditions, or die. It's a simple concept. Why do you insist on making it difficult?

I keep asking for examples, real examples of favorable mutations which increase complexity (as evolution requires) I never hear any examples.

Like albinism?

I would also like to point out that you have yet to provide evidence for a creator or designer.

I already did in post# 549, and you have not been able to refute a word of it, here it is again:

[---Evidence against abiogensis, evidence against abiogenisis, misapplied math masquerading as evidence against. Blah, blah, blah. Snip.---]

Ignoring the fact that your arguments have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, do you have evidence FOR a designer?

[---Evidence against abiogensis, evidence against abiogenisis, misapplied math masquerading as evidence against. Blah, blah, blah. Snip.---]

Yup, I have given plenty of scientific evidence against abiogenesis which you cannot refute. You cannot even imagine a way in which life could have come about according to what we know to be a fact. Also, you keep talking about misapplied math, yet you cannot refute it either. Here, look at it again. Let's see if you can give a refutation instead of spouting total blather:

Nice rhetoric, but totally disproved by modern science. There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

I am very curious about something that maybe y'all could explain to me from your various perspectives.

It seems that most all scientific theory includes specific predictions which can either be proven as true, or disproven as false, through experiment or observation.

The falsification method I understand was championed by Karl Popper. Basically, as I understand it, it is quicker and less expensive to go the falsification route than to compile positive evidence.

I realize that Popper theory is extremely unpopular among evolutionists, but I don't see why. After all, in most theories (e.g. "water freezes at 44 F") - simply running the test to prove the theory is false ought to be enough.

So what is the problem with applying falsification methods to evolution theory?

Perhaps the points you make are what is confusing me.

The evolutionist side of the debate points to day 4, the 6000 year age, Noah flood and such and concludes that the creationism side of the debate is falsified.

The creationist side of the debate points to ambiogenesis, probability, irreducible complexity and such and concludes that the evolution side of the debate is falsified.

It seems that if falsification is good for the goose it ought to be good for the gander.

As you know, I'm not a player in this debate because I see both sides are true (my own view of origins.)

So what is the problem with applying falsification methods to evolution theory?

The problem is that evolutionists just move the line each time their theory is falsified or they say that unless it is proven utterly, absolutely, completely impossible then evolution is true. Take for example Behe's example of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum. The example has been out there for a dozen years. Everyone has taken a try at explaining it away. They have done experiments trying to knock out one by one the 40 some genes necessary to make it work. Yet evolutionists continue to deny that it refutes their theory. The example of abiogenesis above I think also is almost irrefutable and don't know of anyone that has even been able to propose an alternative that explains the scientific facts we know to be true. To me that shows that evolution is certainly not science but a religion to which its adherents refuse to listen to the facts.

One can easily apply falsification methods to evolution. For example, lots of mammal skeletons in old rocks, non-tree structures rampant in cladistics, or dogs giving birth to insects, would falsify evolutionary theory.

That is a false challenge. However, even in organisms there are some that totally discredit descent with modification. Two examples are the platypus and euglena. Euglena is a very small organism which is both a plant and an animal and has an eye. No way it could have descended from anything. I also think that dinosaurs are overall a big problem for evolution. They are clearly very different from reptiles. They are very old and very varied. They were almost certainly much more complex than any other species on earth at the time.

However the big problem with evolution is the 'how' of evolution. For it to be true there has to have been a biological path by which it took place. Each time we learn more about biology, the more unlikely it is that the changes required by evolution could ever have taken place.

The evolutionist side of the debate points to day 4, the 6000 year age, Noah flood and such and concludes that the creationism side of the debate is falsified.

The problem with the above is that most Christians do not think of a 6,000 year age for the universe as what is meant in the Bible. Your reconciliation of the Bible with the scientific facts for example is one reason. So this attack does not work except for a small proportion of Christians and does not address their beliefs.

The creationist side of the debate points to ambiogenesis, probability, irreducible complexity and such and concludes that the evolution side of the debate is falsified.

The interesting thing is that evolutionists, almost since Darwin, have been 'revising' the 'how' of their theory. It seems each time they propose a new explanation of how evolution takes place it is refuted by science. Even the fossil record, and particularly the Cambrian explosion is a big problem. As is also the 'descent' of man. Both IMHO also refute evolution.

However, perhaps the greatest refutation of evolutionism is perhaps their insulting attitude towards opponents. They talk down to those who disagree with them as if they were complete fools. They call them ignorant because they dare believe in God. They ascribe to them a hatred for science and an ignorance of it. This is all very untrue and very unfair. There are many scientists who are good believing Christians and they see no problem between their profession and their religion. In fact, many think that their research reinforces their religious beliefs. If evolution were scientifically true, it would not use such tactics to substantiate its beliefs. It would do what real scientists do, lay out the scientific facts which back up their theory.

So what is the problem with applying falsification methods to evolution theory?

Not a thing. Words, however, are nuanced, slippery, malleable entities and subject to manipulation by bright human beings while mathematics, also a language, is far more precise and rigorous. Thus physics is legitimately the most respected science. The math may be esoteric but it yields specific, testable, falsifiable conclusions about physical reality and thus must be respected. There is no "wiggle room".

Not so with Evolution, which is why Master Sophists such as Gould and Dawkins could rise to public prominence within this so-called science. For years, Gould promoted the absurd notion that "chance" was explanatory. This is not only surrealistic, it is anti-science.

This fundamental sophistry at the heart of Darwin's work was brilliantly exposed by Gertrude Himmelfarb in 1959 with the publication of Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, as you know. But did you also notice that the substance of her critique was not addressed on a recent thread? When Darwinists spend their time attacking and ridiculing "Creationists" and not supporting their theory, it is a tipoff that something other than science is going on. Good science always respects the facts and good science does not draw unwarranted conclusions about reality. Abiogenesis, as tested by physical reality, is a failed hypothesis. But why won't the Darwinists let it go unless they feel there is a philosophical understanding of the universe at stake, and an anti-Christian one at that?

Here's the TalkOrigins definition:

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

And here's my critique of it. "Change over time" is no big deal and easily dismissed as science. So we dismiss it. Change occurs but that doesn't validate Evolution. TalkOrigins goes on to simply state that "common descent" has been established with evidence so overwhelming that it is considered a fact. Well this is simply not so. There are acknowledged and important similarities among species and the complexity of final living forms has increased over geological time but how that occured, supported by the physical evidence, has neither been established nor made plain by the Evolutionists. It is thus absolutely untrue that "the theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution", TalkOrigins' bald but unfounded assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

My conclusion (I'm not in the least afraid to make value judgements, as I'm sure you've noticed) is that they are lying to us and to the world. And this is validated by their constant resort to the debating tactics so well described by Phillip Johnson in his small book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, copyright 1997, InterVarsity Press. The "tipoff" is always the vehemence of their ad hominem attacks. Some of us are, however, quite capable of trading barb for barb, if it comes to that. But it should be clear that this is not science.

No, the abiogenesis isn't falsified; it's still an active field of research. At on time, it was believed that no organic material could be produced from inorganic. The prevailing idea of "vitalism" was that organic materials could only be made by living creatures. In 1828, Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic chemicals. Later experiments showed that rather complex molecules can be produced with not much input. The existence of complex organic molecules in instellar space also shows that inorganic matter can give rise to organic molecules (assuming there aren't living beings in space.) This doesn't prove that abiogenesis is possible, only that several (formerly considered insurmountable) barriers are not really that high. Of course, abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with changes in the living.

Most of the probability arguments are simply meaningless. Hugh Ross has a web page illustrating the problem. He has a bunch of numbers (without explanation of origin) claiming to be probabilities of things happening then he multiplies them together. As these are not probabilities of independent events (if they are probabilities at all), they cannot be meaningfully multiplied. An incorrect probability model yields incorrect information.

"Irreducibla complexity" is just snake oil. Most of it boils down to either incorrect use of the term "complexity" or of specifying one method of construction of an object and ignoring other methods. The mathematical theory of complexity has to do with the length of the description needed to define an object. Randomly created objects are very complex but highly organized objects are not. Dembski in particular seems to switch between random=complex and organized=complex a lot in his writings.

No part of Creationism can be falsified; Creationism is logically indistinguishabe from Last Thursdaysim (the theory that the world was created Last Thursday, memories and all). One can easily show the non-existance of a world wide flood in historical times but if a Creator is invoked to create a flood, he could have erased the traces just as easily. Creationism is not science and would be irrelevant to scientific inquiry were the Creationists not trying to get the government involved in pushing their ideas as science. (I think the government should get out of the science business entirely. If the government is going to fund or teach science, the best current thinking must be supported or taught.)

Yes, I read your reply #663, and its length and detail in no way refute the substance of Himmelfarb's critique.

* Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

"Precursors" is interpretive, unwarrantedly conclusionary and not science. Given the lies that have been propounded by the Evolutionists for over a century, I am simply not willing to accept this statement as fact. And the essence of this small critique can be applied to the whole post. Anyone can become acquainted with the multitude of forms, find the similarities and their approximate timeframes, and "interpolate" to find "missing" forms. Is this science? Well, I suppose in some small way that it is. But it says nothing about how it all occurred.

I have and do freely acknowledge that living forms are related in significant ways, for the unteenth time, but the Evolutionists have failed utterly to show how, specifically, they relate and that one form "evolved" into another. The lab and fossil evidence is that (currently indentified) 300,000+ species stubbornly reproduce true-to-form over very long periods of time and that mutations are destructive. We are left with rhetoric.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.