Dismantling Darwinism

Decisions Magazine ^ | August 2003 | by Jim Dailey

[Tribune7]

Generations of American schoolchildren have been taught that Darwin's theory of evolution is the explanation for the origin of life -- regardless of what they might have learned in Sunday school. Yet according to law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson, this modern-day mantra of science classes is little more than a dogma of materialism. In his books "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," "Darwin on Trial," "Reason in the Balance" and others, Johnson defends the truth with the intellectual clout that earned him a prestigious seat at the University of California, Berkeley, yet with a humility that can only come from knowing the Creator one-on-one. Here, he talks candidly with "Decision" on the topic he is most passionate about -- dismantling Darwinism.

Q: The Ohio Board of Education recently ruled that public schools in that state can now discuss controversies surrounding the theory of evolution. Why do you think so many leading educators fought to keep such debate out of the classroom?

A: It's a good question. You would think the Darwinists would be glad to teach the controversy as a matter of educational policy. According to public opinion polls, most of the nation has serious doubts about the truth of the evolutionary theory. Why don't the educators want to address those doubts seriously? They are afraid to acknowledge that there are any doubts that matter. Real scientists, they say, believe without any doubt in the theory of evolution. But in Ohio we had petitions signed by dozens of well-credentialed scientists saying that this area of study should be opened up to freedom of thought. Science should not be committed to a dogma -- much less a dogma that is in serious trouble with the evidence -- but should freely acknowledge areas of doubt and should address them honestly.

Q: Through your books and lectures, you've become known as someone who has worked hard to bring together different factions of the creationist movement.

A: My policy is to concentrate on the first issue: What scientific evidence points toward or away from the need for a Creator? Does the evidence of science really show that Darwin's force of natural selection is so powerful that nature can do its own creating and that there is no need for God? That's the philosophical doctrine the Darwinists propose, but my colleagues and I have shown that it is not true. The evidence, as opposed to the scientific imperialism, points to the fact that natural selection has no creative power and that the Creator is very much needed. So if we concentrate on that issue first, then we can get to other issues that are somewhat divisive within the Christian world. I have done that by saying, "Let's be careful that we start with the correct Scripture."

[gore3000]

This is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?

Science is hard work, it is not a little game of playing with computer codes, it is about finding ways to discover new facts in nature. It may take decades by dozens of scientists working on a little problem, on a little question, but that is how scientific advances are made. Trying to prove whether something is true or not is what science is all about. Often as not, the proof contradicts the assumptions. That is why it is so important to get the facts first.

[gore3000]

But what really caught my eye in the passages I cited was the idea that biological organisms can affect and transform the environment, and that microorganisms filled (and putatively still fill) a niche in nature that tends to "support of the whole biota."

Remember a long time ago (in what nowadays seems to have been a galaxy far, far away) when in the schools they had the posters with the circle of life? They do help sustain each other as well as the living conditions for it. Good farmland has been built up by the work of living organisms in many ways. Just like there seems to be a great chain of being with life always having been begotten by life.

[gore3000]

I cited observable facts.

No you did not. You did not cite any observable facts of living things made of RNA. Viri are not living things, they cannot reproduce. Yes, there is enzymatic RNA in living organisms, that is not the same as there being living organisms made solely of RNA.

As to HIV, it does not replicate, it is a parasite which cannot reproduce itself. It is not a living thing. Without DNA based life it could not even exist.

Also check out andrewc's post on HIV at 295. It shows quite well that the atheist myth of an RNA world is scientific garbage peddled to the uninformed by self proclaimed scientists with no honesty.

[gore3000]

The evidence lies in the fossil record.

The fossil record does not provide any evidence of descent at all. Descent is about replication, the dead do not replicate and can therefore offer no proof of descent. If you let loose a hundred paleontologists in a cemetery where all the headstones have been removed, they will not be able to determine from the bones father and child - and this is much better evidence than can be gathered from almost all digs where only partial remains are to be found.

In addition, bones cannot tell us the important things about a living organism - its DNA, how it lived, how it functioned, etc. That is why there is so much argument about dinosaurs, the one major category of living things which is extinct and there is nothing alive to draw comparisons with.

[gore3000]

Thanks for the great post! One wonders what kind of 'scientist' can ignore such evidence about the fragility of RNA.

[gore3000]

I don't have a clue what is the point in re-posting the commonplace observation that RNA is less stable than DNA.

I already told you what the point is in post# 275:

The one thing DNA has over RNA is much higher chemical stability.-you-

Showing an important reason why RNA life is impossible - the instability of RNA would make it a very bad medium for transmitting hard to acquire genetic information. It also would make life impossible when one's functions are just dissappearing due to the instability of RNA.-me-

Repeating what has already been addressed - and not refuted - in the hopes that others did not catch it, is not a very useful way to conduct a discussion.

[unspun]

 I doubt the question which will capture of the attention of the scientists is so much whether the whole is greater than the parts; IMHO, they may avoid that one in favor of the philosophers.
  Rather, I suspect the questions which will give rise to a new approach (such as integrative science) will include these: what is life, symbolizations, functional complexity, qualia, bridge between the micro and macro worlds, autonomous self-organizing biological complexity and emergent behavior.
  How far they can get with any of these is an open question, in my view.

Thank you, yes, open... to us, just how far. And well, scientists may try to ignore it, but as I see in "My Comments," you, betty boop and gore3000 have done well to explain how it is impossible to ignore, if one wants to make sense of... anything.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the heads up to the discussion!

I agree with you that science needs to consider the "idea that biological organisms can affect and transform the environment, and that microorganisms filled (and putatively still fill) a niche in nature that tends to "support of the whole biota."

The point I found relevant in the Rocha manuscript applies to only a tiny issue, but a very important one if there were no designer, no intelligence involved. IOW, the alternating of RNA molecules in an RNA world between the stable state to carry information and the reactive state to perform catalytic functions - which would be necessary to give rise to autonomous biological self-organizing complexity - in itself implies intelligence (at least to me.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your reply and understanding! Hugs!

[Right Wing Professor]

Viri are not living things, they cannot reproduce.

'Viri' do not exist. Are you discussing viruses?

[Right Wing Professor]

As to HIV, it does not replicate, it is a parasite which cannot reproduce itself

So's a tapeworm.

[PatrickHenry]

Viri in Latin means "men."

[Right Wing Professor]

Viri in Latin means "men."

So Gore3000 thinks men are not living things? That's pretty harsh.

[Right Wing Professor]

Repeating what has already been addressed - and not refuted - in the hopes that others did not catch it, is not a very useful way to conduct a discussion.

It has already been noted that some RNA viruses can withstand incredibly harsh conditions, and maintain their genomic integrity for years. A microbe with similar genomic stability would have the chance to double over 10,000 times before acquiring some genome damage.

The fact that you don't understand the refutation does not mean the point has not been refuted.

[PatrickHenry]

That's pretty harsh.

It's somewhat like "between you and I." A failed attempt at linguistic eloquence.

[ZULU]

"The fossil record does not provide any evidence of descent at all."

I beg to differ. The fossil record indocates, over a period of time, altered skeletal records in a progressive sequence, of various species through succesive and progressive changes in their structures. Granted these are not complete records - merely a series of snapshots in time.

"If you let loose a hundred paleontologists in a cemetery where all the headstones have been removed, they will not be able to determine from the bones father and child"

Not necessarily true. Certain physical features, reflected in skeletal remains have been used to indicate probable familial relationships.

"In addition, bones cannot tell us the important things about a living organism - its DNA, how it lived, how it functioned, etc."

You can draw some broad conclusions about a species by examining the fossil record - how the creature moved, its probable environment, its probable food. They have even reached the level of sophistication where they can conclude the TYPE of vegetation consumed by surface marks on dentition, the kinds of protein material consumed by examining the bones, etc. A lot of techniques used in forensic science and palaeontology - archaeology are very similar.

"That is why there is so much argument about dinosaurs, the one major category of living things which is extinct and there is nothing alive to draw comparisons with."

Very close analogies have been drawn between dinosaurs and birds and crocodilians. Crocodilians as a matter of fact, are classified as Archosaurs, the same group containing dinosaurs. Fossil dinosaurs, particularly theropods very closely resemble raptorial birds (hawks, etc.) and ratites (Ostriches, emus, rheas) in very many osteological features, far too many to have been merely coincidental. Further, recent dicoveries coming out of central Asia indicate a good representation of small raptorial theropods had feathers.

There have been arguments between two groups of palaeontologists about the genesis of birds - whether they arose from a reptile ancestral to dinosaurs, or from some group of therapod dinosaurs. But there have been no arguments about where birds arose from - they arose from reptiles. I would say that based on recent findings from Central Asia, it is more likely birds arose from therapod dinosaurs.

[gore3000]

It has already been noted that some RNA viruses can withstand incredibly harsh conditions

Who cares, they are not living things. They are parasites which require DNA life to replicate. DNA is the source of life in all living things.

Further, in spite of all the attempts made to mutate viruses - with chemicals, machinery, radiation, and everything else imaginable - not a single virus has ever become a living thing. As I say and I will keep saying, abiogenesis is impossible and only phony atheist scientists serve this pap to the public in the hopes of a fast buck.

[gore3000]

The fossil record indocates, over a period of time, altered skeletal records in a progressive sequence, of various species through succesive and progressive changes in their structures.

Which means absolutely nothing at all. You can make the same series if you like of just about any living creature on earth by arranging the living specimens in the desired order.

Most important of all though, for evolution to be true it has to be able to show HOW it happened. Bones do not and cannot show that. There is absolutely no valid scientific explanation for how evolution could be possible in the light of modern scientific knowledge.