Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control

Institute for Creation Research ^ | Aug, 2004 | Dr. Charles McCombs

[AQGeiger]

But you do it so well with that one line, it's a beautiful thing....

[ArGee]

You may not like it, but I have a problem with people that explain away the universe with the knowledge they have expert or not in their one little area of knowledge. What if tomorrow a physicist proves him wrong, and the next day a biologist proves them both wrong, and then some loon discovers another piece of the lost scrolls of pangeia or something and says "that's the answer we've been looking for all along."

One of the initial concepts of Universities, and the reason they are not called Diversities, is that all Truth is Truth, and there is a single framework for knowledge into which all the disciplines fall.

Biologists, Physicists, and Chemists are all trying to understand the same universe. They may need to do some work to reconcile their viewpoints, including changing their minds about what they know, but they should not be finding truths that prove each other wrong.

Shalom.

[AQGeiger]

In the universe which we can study we have a pretty clearly established cause-effect model. Since things "wind down" they must first have been "wound up" (absent quantum implications which are interesting mathematically but have not been successful in moving systems from a state of winding down to wound up without a cause).

So your clear statement that evolutionary belief is as much a statement of faith as Creationism is not quite correct.

I never made any clear statements that evolutionary belief is as much a statement of faith. I simply stated that I find the most common creationist argument, which you make in your post to me, is self-contradictory.

You're just rehashing the same old argument.

[edsheppa]

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary.

Yet another ignorant (or worse) "Doctor" heard from. It may even be a record - a blatant falsehood in the very first sentence.

For the lurkers: evolutionary theory is (so far) silent on the origin of life on earth. Said origin may or may not have been by an evolutionary process. There are many speculations and some of them are evolutionary in nature, but there's not much in the way of evidence for any particular speculation and certainly no generally accepted scientific explanation.

[Elsie]

So many assumptions; so little time.



(one line)

[Elsie]

Here's my religion: the universe exists, I know not why, I hope to God I never die.

Boy!

There's a lot contained in this little ditty!

[Elsie]

Sentence fragement ALERT!

I never made any clear statements....

[AndrewC]

Here's my religion: the universe exists, I know not why, I hope to God I never die.

[AQGeiger]

No dearie, you haven't, because you haven't yet had a post that includes all of a subject, a predicate, capitalization, and punctuation. And instead of engaging in conversation, all you can do is launch crazy cut-downs against anybody who chooses to respectfully disagree from you.

You're proving almost as bad as the liberals who think anyone who doesn't support unlimited social programs for nonproductive members of society are automatically mean and uncaring.

[Agamemnon]

This article is so full of holes in both logic and science that it hardly merits comments. This guy should pick up a Biochemistry text that was written in the 20th century.

Go ahead. I have Master's in Biochemistry and 22 years in my profession too: I hold individual BS degrees in biology and chemistry, as well, and like the author my name is also on synthetic patents.

He doesn't happen to accept evolutionary premises and their inherent impossibilites as fact, like you do. I don't accept them either.

Instead of just blowing smoke and posturing, why don't you challenge and refute statements he has made on a scientific instead of an emotional basis.

[Oztrich Boy]

Actually Evolution is not self-aware. It has no hopes or desires or concern about your survival.

[Elsie]

 

No dearie, you haven't, because you haven't yet had a post that includes all of a subject, a predicate, capitalization, and punctuation. And instead of engaging in conversation, all you can do is launch crazy cut-downs against anybody who chooses to respectfully disagree from you.

You're proving almost as bad as the liberals who think anyone who doesn't support unlimited social programs for nonproductive members of society are automatically mean and uncaring.

 

It appears you know of what you are speaking............

 

 

Guess what Sweetie........

You get upset when your gender is guessed wrong, well, I don't.

[Elsie]

Pssstt..........

(You forgot to point out the misspelled word. Surely that would make me more of a boob.)

[George W. Bush]

AFAIAC, you creationist johnnies have not moved beyond the bogus 'The watch must have a watch-maker' argument.

Even if that was true, it still wouldn't prove evolution.

I find really gaping holes with the sorts of proofs offered for both. I think this article demonstrates why we should be cynical about the claims of evolutionists.

But merely because I doubt evolution's claims doesn't mean I have to go thump a Bible either. I prefer to believe in creation but, in the end, for spiritual and literary reasons more than any proof offered for it.

You know, some people act like it's a terrible thing that we don't know certain things about physics or biology. I think it makes life more interesting.

Bloody waste of time.

Only for people who are too lazy to read or think. In truth, it's a fascinating area of human inquiry. Both sides tend to sharpen the other up. Otherwise, both would stagnate.

[headsonpikes]

My #8 was a grumpy post!

It seems to me that that there are definitely atheistic scientists with axes to grind as well as sectarians with particular views of creation to advance.

IIRC, science requires a willingness to drop an incorrect idea - in fact, there is usually a race to see who can falsify an accepted view first.

What we have here is scarcely that.

The very existence of the universe at all is an inexplicable miracle. That the physical, chemical, and biological connections are equally marvellous should be no surprise.

We mostly utter nonsense when we attempt to put it all together in a general theory or doctrine. There is little humility displayed in the face of the majesty of the universe.

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."

[Elsie]

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."

Don't let THIS get out, or else 80% of FR will shut down!

---

;^)

[headsonpikes]

heh.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[George W. Bush]

IIRC, science requires a willingness to drop an incorrect idea - in fact, there is usually a race to see who can falsify an accepted view first.

There is in science history a guy called Popper. He wrote some great material on this topic, the seminal work in the area.

Basically, he said that it simply cannot be considered science if it is unfalsifiable. Brilliant man. Naturally, the evolutionists are determined to destroy his ideas because they, alone among the sciences, don't pass his tests.

Wikipedia: Falsifiability

This is interesting because it asks us exactly what we think science is and how do we do 'science'? What is and is not science? Fascinating.

We can observe that evolutionists have consistently refused to admit the shortcomings of their theories or they keep modifying them in ways that cannot be tested or creating truly bizarre theories. To me, it's like how you can't ever prove anything in formal semantics. Or Marxism. There's something a little hysterical in their approach, like they're hiding a crazy aunt in the attic.

Evolution is, as many top scientists have admitted, just a working theory because they can't assume that God causes everything. In other words, we have to assume natural processes that we can analyze and understand and that the underlying physical laws remain constant. Many strident evolutionist types like to declare war on religion. But the real top scientists just use the assumptions of natural process and don't try to pick a fight with religion. And I don't see Christians with a problem with this. After all, who wants to fly on a plane designed according to the principles of creation science? Not me.

I suppose many Christians would observe that God created quantum physics to torture scientists who doubt His existence but I prefer to think God is kind and we're just still a little stupid.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - EVOLUTION