Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged

Stabroke News ^ | July 4th, 2007 | Roger Williams

[balch3]

Dear Editor,

Reading Kowlessar Misir's letter captioned "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive: belief is a matter of faith!" (07.06.30) is a tortuous journey. Throughout the letter, one senses the difficulty in conceptualizing the big picture, and also a desperate search for meaning. An indication of Misir's dilemma is the fact that, in the tight space of a single page, he asked 21 questions rather than exercise diligence in rationalizing their answers. The reason for this, sadly, is found in the very last line of his effort as he quotes Miller on Darwin, denying the existence of a soul. Could this intellectual panic be about Misir's infatuation with atheism and evolution? He is now engaged in the ultimate deception, making a case for a "God of diversity" while at the same time denying His (God's) existence. Remember Psalm 14:1 …

The available "scientific" evidence will add to his misery. He should recognize at once that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, Darwin and atheism than to believe in Jesus Christ!

In any belief system, it surely is a comfort to find that the "scientific" (however defined) basis upon which that system rests acts itself out with the reassuring consistency or probability of a "law". Likewise, it must surely portend disaster and crisis when the system has to be held up with the bandages of deception and denial. Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) adopts a view that is completely opposite to Misir's: "… science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. ... since (for) the same God who "authored" the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted." To believe any less of any belief system would be self-deluding indeed. Misir is fundamentally deficient in advocating that "These two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is never any convergence". He denies his own system, whatever that is, since he maintains that science cannot uphold it.

We should turn to Marilyn Adamson (Is there a God?) for a brief rebuttal of Misir's evolutionary concept that the "… world is a complex heterogeneous system and that evolved from a complex heterogeneous system". This idea of Misir's sounds impressive indeed until one carries the process to its absurdly infinite iteration. One must finally make a decision on where the first "complex" heterogeneous system came from. Complexity, by its very definition is ordered not chaotic, is multi-faceted, and reflects intelligence. Adamson offers six simple but compelling lower-order observations for the existence of the God of the Bible, and it is this level of abstraction in reasoning that Misir must aim at, rather than rhetorical thrust and parry. He may want, for example, to rationalize his concern with the validity of "philosophies that predate the common Biblical era" against the Christian position that the "Biblical era" begins, well, at the "beginning itself" per Genesis 1:1.

I sense that the most meaningful insight into Adamson's foresight is in her fifth point. Here, she maintains that "We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him." Misir is no different from billions of Christians in this regard, and here's the proof: after vowing to address "God" in a later treatment in as early as the second paragraph, he almost unconsciously refers to "God" no less than 15 times in the paragraphs thereafter. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comforts him, and us, with the soothing words of Jeremiah 29:11-14. Misir has thereby found his answer as to why God gave him the "ability to intellectualize". To choose to seek God from a wide range of intellectual distractions is worship indeed, this with a peace that passes all understanding.

But I also sense that it is the higher-order arguments regarding Biblical creation/ evolution that Misir's attention is really focused on, since he says in concluding: "Scientific thought has provided the necessary tools of investigation that yielded knowledge and information, enabling us to make informed statements on the development of humankind." He however cites none of them, and I admire his caution, because evolution as a scientific principle has been all but disproved. A formidable body of evidence already exists in such works as Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2000. 338 pages) and Science & Christianity: Four Views (InterVarsity Press, 2000. 276 pages) http://www.reasons. org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml# book_reviews. There are others.

Wells, for one, carefully documents his thesis from the work of evolutionary biologists, explaining that the "icons" of evolution-considered to be the best evidence for evolution-are nothing more than scientific myths, in most cases.

The lack of experimental and observational support for evolution's so-called best evidence comes not from recent scientific advances, in most instances, but from long-acknowledged mainstream scientific literature. This lack of support prompts Wells to repeatedly question why textbooks consistently present these "icons" as evidence for evolution when evolutionary biologists understand that these "icons" are equivocal at best in their support for evolution.

He believes that the answer to this question stems from a deliberate effort by Darwinian ideologues to suppress scientific truth out of concern that without these widely known "icons" of evolution, public support for evolution will wane.

The evolutionary "icons" addressed by Wells include: 1) the Miller-Urey experiment; 2) the evolutionary "Tree of Life"; 3) the homology of vertebrate limbs; 4) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos; 5) Archaeopteryx as the missing link connecting birds to reptiles; 6) the peppered moth story; 7) beak evolution and speciation among Darwin's finches; 8) the laboratory-directed evolution of four-winged fruit flies; 9) equine evolution; and 10) human evolution.

In Misir's world of evolution and atheism, the scientific tools have been applied, and the concepts found wanting. Now what?

We conclude that it takes more "faith" to believe in a lie called "Darwinian evolution", and the tragedy of atheism, than to believe in Jesus Christ! Now, we should examine how the scientific tools validate intelligent design and, by inference, creation!

Yours faithfully,

Roger Williams

[RightWhale]

why are you an athiest?

Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

[burzum]

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and cannot be proved using the scientific method. I have my own belief system that has been developed over years.

Prove it. I have heard this lie enough recently on FR that it makes me want to cry. I'll give you a hint before you reply: look up the exact definition of entropy in a closed system and then look up the Gibbs Free Energy equation and how to solve it (hint: there is an Sint and Sext).

[ndt]

"One thing that does it for me is the giraffe. The fossil records show no transitional ancestors."

Fossilization is a rare event one would not expect to find a record for every single step of every single species. While there are numerous examples of transitional fossils, as far as I know you are correct, there is no clear short necked giraffe fossils, there are however related living animals that show exactly that those retained features.



"A mutation producing longer legs simultaneously with longer neck (not to mention the complex system of valves necessary for such a long neck) to appear simultaneously is extremely improbable."

Winning the lottery is also extremely improbable, but someone does it nearly every week.

"As for the other animals on the savannah, I find it interesting that the same "natural slection" that dictated a giraffe's neck to grow somehow didn't apply to the others."

You just got done stating that the mutations were extremely improbable and now are expressing surprise that the same mutation did not occur repeatedly. That seems inconsistent.

There are numerous potential strategies for living on a savanna a long neck is just one way of taking advantage of one renounce. Elephants for example use an entirely different approach to accomplish the same task, reaching hard to get to food.

"Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine. What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?"

It only takes a single exception to falsify a theory, but it takes a large body of evidence to support one. So I would point you to not a single observation, but the entire body geologic of fossil evidence and genetic research which is nearly unanimously accepted to support the ToE. As a start I would direct you towards a good overview of the evidence.

[ndt]

"The real question to evolutionists is why are you an athiest? It’s not about science, it’s about defying God."

Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?

[mysterio]

Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged

No, it hasn't.

[Alter Kaker]

When will the scientific community come up with any evidence that supports evolution?

Don't be fatuous.

[Alter Kaker]

Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.

[Coyoteman]

Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.

That's creation "science" -- the stuff they want taught in science classes.

[DungeonMaster]

Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

Interesting response. I suppose there are a few people out there that strongly believe in theistic evolution. They are an interesting breed.

[DungeonMaster]

Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?

So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? Sure sounds like you are helping make my point.

[ndt]

"So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? "

No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?

[DungeonMaster]

No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?

I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological.

[ndt]

"I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological."

Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.

[DungeonMaster]

Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.

Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself.

[ndt]

"It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology."

What terminology? I asked a simple yes/no question. You weaseled. It has nothing to do with crevo/evo and everything to do with character.

"Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means."

You seem to have an expansive definition of religion shared by few. Water boiling at 100C at sea level is not a religious belief, it is objective reality.

"Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself."

No, not really. If it did I would take that into account as part of my world view, but I'm hardly looking forward to it nor expecting it in the least.

[burzum]

Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Except atheists. If you try to make the assumption that everyone is 'religious' because they are human then the term has no value and cannot be used to argue a point. The term 'religious' is useful *because* it is exclusive. Denying that exclusivity indicates that there is nothing special about the property that the term was made to describe.

This particular argument annoys me because I hear similar statements from those on the left. It sounds very much like Newspeak.

[Bryan24]

Evolution is a dead end with no explanation.

If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing. Absolutely impossible by every law of physics. If your theory has a starting point that is impossible, all that follows is impossible.

The Bible states in Psalms 19:1-3

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.....”

Those verses, composed 3,000 years ago, confirm what we know through common sense.

This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator. Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it.

The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”

[ndt]

"If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing."

Actually that pretty much sums up genesis.

"Absolutely impossible by every law of physics."

And the subsequent miracles of the Bible somehow don't violate the law of physics?

"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...."

And yet so many creationists refuse to actually listen to the firmament and night reveal their knowledge because they are providing ample evidence of evolution.

In fact, if there is a god he must be shaking his head in disbelief that people would blindly ignore the evidence he provided in quantity despite specific admonitions to learn from it.

"This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator."

Well the ToE says nothing about the existence of a creator. I on the other hand see no evidence to support the existence of one.

"Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it."

OK, what did you see last night that told you that?

And when did I cease to be a person on earth?

"The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”"

I'm too busy sorting the huge fossil record that he put down showing evidence of common decent.

[csense]

"Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what happened IN the beginning. The word Genesis means IN the beginning. The second verse establishes that something happened to that creation..."

I'm continually befuddled as to why people seem to think that the first line of Genesis is an act of creation. It is not, period, and anyone who has ever taken grammar school level literature can tell you that.

But don't take my word for it, follow your own line of reasoning. If you believe that Genesis one *is* an act of creation, then not only did God create the earth in that first line, but also the heavens, and there is no indication in verse two that the heavens also needed recreation, Which means that the chronology of creation that follows, including the heavens, poses a major problem for your argument.

You have God creating the heavens twice....once in the first line, and the second in the chronology that follows.

The argument simply doesn't make sense from the point of internal consistency of the Bible itself. You may think it makes sense scientifically, but it doesn't make sense theologically.

[csense]

Re: Jeremiah, chapter 4
Jeremiah is told about the destruction of this earth pre-flesh man..."

I think you're reading into the text what you want, much like Genesis.