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

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

[Right Wing Professor]

The one and only reason for ruling out a Creator or ID's designer is that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution would be refuted.

'One and only'? Really? So if I say that the reason I discount ID as an alternative scientific theory is where and how it is being used - not to foster real research, or to develop a better understanding of the world, but to alter the way we teach science in schools - then that would be a second reason, and I've falsified your statement, no?

[metacognative]

Darwinites talk a lot more about GOD than ID'ers do!

[stremba]

If ID is science, then you should have no problem with this. Give me at least one prediction made by ID. It should be a prediction that if it were found to be incorrect would cause you to abandon ID. I have previously posted such a prediction using evolution as a basic principle. If a life form that used something other than nucleic acids as a genetic material were found, evolution would be false. Please provide such a prediction based on ID.

[Right Wing Professor]

I demand equal time for the Nation of Islam's creation myth.

Let me guess: the evil angel is called 'whitey'.

[Concerned]

PHOENIX0468 WROTE: "By the way, Darwin personally refuted many of his own claims later in life. And as for your "vast weight" of evidence, most of it still lies on the foundation that Darwin created and of course later refuted. So it seems, when you pile BS, it just stinks a little more."

PATRICK HENRY ANSWERED: "Complete, total, absolute hogwash. Post your backup for those claims, and we'll show that your sources are all frauds. (Trust me, we go through this stuff all the time.)"

I am a long-time Christian with two bachelors' degrees and one masters' degree. Until a couple of years ago when I started doing some research into the issues of evolution and the creation of the universe, I believed in the millions/billions of years time frames. Such time frames, of course, totally contradict Genesis.

I have changed my mind 180 degrees, however, and am thoroughly convinced that what Genesis say is not only possible, it DID, in fact, happen just the way it says.

At the very least, we should present kids with opposing views so that they can decide what they believe. Afterall, evolution is not considered "fact" by even those who propose it---even they refer to it as just a theory. "Genesis 1-believing" Christians, however, DO consider the 6-day creation as fact.

Regarding the Scopes Trial, there is a very interesting DVD which can be found at:
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/30-9-032

You can also find the actual transcript of the Scopes Trial at:
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/41ab61bd0077645e271d45579e7a06c7/Product/View/10-3-079

Answers in Genesis has a page which lists links to find more information regarding the Scopes trial at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/scopes.asp

David Menton has another DVD at:
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/41ab628700896658271d45579e7a06c4/Product/View/30-9-020
which says on the AIG website: "This popular introductory talk by Dr. Menton summarizes his best evidences—from the fascinating design of the feather to the remarkable architecture of the honeycomb—to support the creation view of origins. He shows that our world and its fascinating creatures clearly display God’s handiwork. Dr. Menton also disposes of some of the traditional evidences used to support evolution."

You can aso find a very interesting DVD regarding the famous "Lucy" ape/woman fossils at:
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/41ab628700896658271d45579e7a06c4/Search/Display

They also have some DVDs regarding the incredible fallable-nature of the numerous time-dating systems that are used to allegedly "validate" the evolutionists' millions/billions of years claims. It is interesting when they use the evolutionists' own dating system claims to prove their theory not only wrong, but impossible.

When you start to look at the world, and all that is in it, through Biblical glasses, the pieces of the puzzle seem to finally come together. And for those questions that we still don't know the answer to, "Genesis-1 believing" Christians, thankfully, at least know the One who DOES!!!

[jwalsh07]

I've been told repeatedly that ID is synonomous with creationism which validates God and that God is not falsifiable. If you can create matter, energy and laws of physics from nothing then God is not a unique being and you have falsified that notion. So are you saying that God is falsifiable through observation?

[stremba]

Maybe because "dawinites" (as if there is such a thing) are not the Godless, evil atheists you've always been taught they were.

[NJ_gent]

"big hearty FACT like evolution."

Evolution isn't a fact, and those who claim it is are wrong. The theory of Evolution is just that; a theory. In science, a theory is an axiom which has significant supporting evidence (like, say, the fossil record?), but which has not been directly observed.

"How about a new organ or something? Maybe how a two way reptile lung became a one way bird lung?"

Severe mutations are almost always fatal. Minor ones might just cause severe retardation of horrible disfigurement. This page has some excellent material about how severe most mutations are in a complex organism like humans. From that page, "Two-thirds of all pregnancies are lost. These miscarriages are called spontaneous abortions. Genetic mutation causes an estimated 60% of these spontaneous abortions."

Evolution is not a matter of two humans mating and producing a super-human new species. That's a patent misunderstanding. The theory of Evolution simply looks at what happens when you take minor mutations, genetic variations, natural selection, and a few million years and put them all together under different conditions. It seems that many have this vision that the theory of Evolution claims that elephants are springing up from spider eggs or something. The reality is that it's far more boring than all that, and that it's a very slow and (mostly) gradual shift that occurs over vast amounts of time as conditions for organisms change.

[r9etb]

Give me a similar example using ID as a basic principle.

First off, there is nothing in your example that precludes the development of "all organisms on Earth" as coming from a common ancestor from the design boards of an intelligent agent. I think we both understand the sorts design processes and decisions that would go into that sort of project. This isn't to say that life on Earth did begin that way, but the fact that we can define the methods and requirements for doing the job means that it very well could have been a product of design.

Second, there is no need to assume (as your question seems to imply) that intelligent designers had to be active at all steps in the process from "first organism" to human. The two processes could very well work in parallel, with "intelligent interference" being a relatively rare and localized thing. We easily understand this, because it's how we humans practice intelligent design.

Therefore, evolution predicts that any newly found organism should have nucleic acids as its genetic material. If a new organism is observed that uses some other molecule as its genetic material, this would cause evolution to be found to be false.

You need to be very careful when making statements like this one. It's a mistake to equate an information storage medium with the process of evolution. There is no reason to assume that evolution would be disproved because genetic information was encoded in some different form. (Indeed, I think the case for evolution might well be strengthened by it....) For example, "computer-based life" is in some sense possible even today, and it doesn't use nucleic acids to transmit "genetic information." The lack of DNA clearly does not preclude the possibility that "computer-based life" could change through evolutionary processes.

Give me a similar example using ID as a basic principle.

Still not sure what you're asking here, as you have yet to define "ID" in an unambiguous manner, in terms of both its scope and characteristics. Are we talking about ID in the sense of the folks who spliced a jellyfish gene into monkey DNA? That was clearly a case of intelligent design.

[cainin04]

Ok, you are right, I should not have said Einstien's Big Bang Theory. It just laid the building blocks for the near-law that it would become. I guess I should have given my credit to George Gamow or Edwin Hubble, sorry for the misrepresentation.

[phoenix0468]

Ok, maybe hogwash, but not complete and total. It is just about as unlikely for him to have said this on his deathbed to someone than it is for his theory to be fact.

[narby]

Jesus doesn't force people to believe in Him, He persuades them.

But leave it to Creationists to force their particular interpretation of the Bible onto public school children. They seem incapable of patient, quiet, humble, pursuasion.

[Woahhs]

If a life form that used something other than nucleic acids as a genetic material were found, evolution would be false.

Please explain why.

[malakhi]

Organisms are said to be of differing species if their reproductive organs are functional, yet they're unable to produce viable offspring (meaning offspring which can then reproduce) due to genetic incompatibilities. At least that's what I was taught in high school - I suppose things could have changed a bit since then.

I was curious how the other poster would reply. Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fecund offspring, but such breedings are extremely rare (suggesting, perhaps, that mate selection has a role in speciation). Most mules are sterile, but some can produce offspring. So horses and donkeys would be farther along the path of speciation than lions and tigers. My point was that there is not always a sharp line dividing what we consider as distinct "species", and that speciation ("macroevolution") is simply the result of the gradual accumulation of microevolutionary changes.

[NJ_gent]

I still do not see anything in either theory of relativity which would lead one to conclude that evolution cannot take place.

[Modernman]

A lack of myostatin is not evolutionary progression,

If it leads to beneficial results, why not?

would you really call this beneficial?

Increased strength is not beneficial?

I'll give you another example- sickle cell anemia.

[cainin04]

Ok, I will attempt it...First I must say that to me, for something to be scientific it must follow these laws.

1.It must be able to be backed up or supported by scientific data.

2. Alternative models to the theory must fail in an attempt to falisfy that theory.

That being said, here is my prediction. The Big Bang Theory leads me to belive in ID. If "non-directional" macro-evolution could be proved to be true (clear in the fossile record, laws of chemistry backed it up, etc) I would conclude that there is a major problem with my concept (the Protestant concept) of God. Because, if macro-evolution is true (a method of change in species without any direction) then God is not what he claims to be in the Bible. Therefore, the claims of George Gamow, Edwin Hubble, Alexander Friedman, George Lemaitre, and many others, are wrong.

Is this satisfactory?

[stremba]

You've missed my point. I am looking for some observation that would show that ID (or creationism) is false. The creation of matter, energy, etc. from nothing does nothing to falsify ID. God could have done this, hence ID is not falsified. This is not an observation, however. I am looking for some observation that would render ID false. If there is no such observation, then ID is not science. My contention is that there is no such observation and that creationism is indeed unfalsifiable and therefore not science.

[puroresu]

Thank you for your reply!

My problem with the theory of evolution is that it seems to have become something of a religious dogma. It is, after all, only a theory, and not a particularly strong one. It's simply the best thing anyone can come up with that excludes God, and excluding God seems to be primary goal.

I don't believe life can come from the absence of life. I believe variation occurs within species, but that is conservatory, not evolutionary. If there are a variety of wolves, it isn't because wolves are trending in the direction of evolving into something else. The variety is conservatory...it's to help wolfkind survive. If an ice age kills the short haired ones, the long haired ones will survive. If a food shortage kills the big ones, the smaller ones (needing less food) will survive. I think the mutations we see in micro-organisms are likewise conservatory, not one tiny step in a micro-organisms' evolutionary trend towards becoming a 3,500 pound mammal.

I think natural selection is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. But I don't think there's a shred of evidence that if you traced a giraffe's ancestry back through the ages, you'd arrive at a single celled organism.

There really seems to be no explanation as to why something like an elephant would ever evolve, given that the things it supposedly evolved from are more fit to survive than an elephant.

It seems to be a quagmire for evolutionists. They must assume that the earliest life forms were simple. The old primordial soup somehow spawning some simple living cell. Though there's no evidence that life can come from its absence, that's easier for people to swallow than telling them a sabre toothed tiger simply popped into existence after lightning struck the right mixture of chemicals in some mud pit.

So they have to start with the simple and assume it evolved, over the ages, into the countless millions of species we see today. All that time extinction was occurring, but we have to assume that every time something became extinct, two or more new creatures evolved. Otherwise, the number of species would never increase to even two, let alone millions.

Yet, at every step along the way, increased complexity decreases fitness. Single celled organisms, our supposed starting point, are still going strong and can reproduce easily simply by splitting, yet they "evolved" into creatures that have to track down mates to survive, gestate their offspring, nurture their offspring, etc., not to mention many other problems.

I'm not a scientist by any means. But I do think evolutionists need to be a little less dogmatic and certainly less smug given what they're working with.

[Modernman]

Let me guess: the evil angel is called 'whitey'.

People of African descent were created by God, but tens of thousands of years ago an evil Professor named Dr. Yakob created white people as a sort of biological weapon that got loose and wrecked the Utopia that had existed before white people mucked it all up.