A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[donh]

In 204, you raised questions about "testibility" of Intelligent Design theory. Here is a brief essay that should cast some light on this.

Every time I try to read Dembski, I get the awfullest headache. Could you narrow down to some paragraph in this monologue where the actual test from this essay on "testibility" is presented? I tromped all the way through it, and it escaped my attention. As far as I can tell, it's more shucking and jiving about irreducible complexity we've all come to know and love.

[gore3000]

"Such a presumption, were science to make it, certainly would taint. "

Evolution does indeed make such a presumption, it attempts to answer the question of God's existence in the negative. Its most vociferous adherents: Hawkings, Gould, Haeckel are/were atheists. It denies God's word, it denies God's hand in the world. Of course it has absolutely no proof of such a thing and of course, since it tries to answer a question which is totally unanswerable by science, it is not science but charlatinism.

[gore3000]

"The problem with your explanation is that if science knows the question cannot be answered anyone that provides an answer to such a question is not a scientist but a charlatan. -me-

Well...not to the point I was trying to make."-rudder-

Of course you were. You cannot justify evolution without saying that there is no God, else it would be much easier to believe that it was God who created the species than some random, almost mystical force, called "evolution".

[donh]

Evolutionists must sidestep the Laws of Thermodynamics in order to possess the faith that they do in their fantasy. Hence it does not suprise me that you fail to make the connection of energy physics to the biological model.

Thermodynamics no more gainsays life than it does diamonds, or forming planets and stars out of inchoate dust. Entropy has no trouble running from less orderly to more orderly in isolated enthalpy up-gradiants, such as in planets rotating around stars. Only the net available energy to do work in an entire closed system has to run down. Nothing prevents isolated pockets receiving energy from an outside source from running up.

[f.Christian]

since it tries to answer a question which is totally unanswerable by science, it is not science but charlatinism.

302 posted on 2/4/02 10:13 PM Pacific by gore3000

charlatinism...nice word for something more sinister--evil!

[gore3000]

"Please quote the passages from Darwin's writings where he advocates atheism.

Clinton has never admitted to having committed perjury, yet tens of millions saw him do so on TV.

That a man does not confess his true intent is not proof that he is not guilty of what he is accussed. However, there is proof of Darwin's dissembling and dishonesty in matters of religion, and here for your edification, I provide it to you:

"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.

Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.

[donh]

Recently they bred successfully a llama and a camel, which evolutionists would call species, and which have been separated from each other genetically for tens of thousands of years. The claim by evolutionists that geographical separation by itself produces new species, that the environment changes "the nature of the beast" has been conclusively proven to be false.

"They" also occasionally breed dogs and cats together, but the issue cannot continue the procreation chain. Like Sabertooth, you are laboring under a false assumption that a "species" is anything other than an invention of academics in order to break up the rooms in museums in an orderly manner. Speciation is a stochastic event and you have to understand it stochastically. Two sets of putatively speciated animals become less likely, in various ways, to produce viable offspring over time. There is no huge gap to be jumped over--it's not a binary function, and no one knows what the precise moment of speciation is--it just dribbles slowly away, and the occasional sport proves nothing except that stochastic questions can't be answered exactly.

[f.Christian]

Big Science Established State Religion...via USSC!

[gore3000]

"We do not see green men because there is no such gene in the human species. -me-

At least you acknowledge a material basis for human traits." - nebullis-

The Bible itself says that man is made of matter and spirit. I have no reason to deny that man has a material side to him.

For you to prove that evolution is correct though, you need to prove how new traits arise, how new genes arise, how totally new features, and abilities arise. This you cannot give proof of and that is why I say that evolution is not science and that Darwin was a charlatan.

[donh]

totally unable to give any proof of.

Sigh. Why is it always starting from scratch again with you?

Natural sciences are not in the proof business. Proofs are a phenomena of pure mathematics, and 13th century theology.

[gore3000]

"Two sets of putatively speciated animals become less likely, in various ways, to produce viable offspring over time. There is no huge gap to be jumped over--it's not a binary function, and no one knows what the precise moment of speciation is--it just dribbles slowly away, and the occasional sport proves nothing except that stochastic questions can't be answered exactly.

You seem to be a good student of the charlatan Darwin! You say much and say nothing! You admit that no one knows when speciation really occurs, that there is no defining line, yet you claim it to be a proven fact!

If you cannot define it, you cannot prove it and in your own words, you cannot define speciation.

[gore3000]

"Natural sciences are not in the proof business."

The "there is no truth" excuse from evolutinists. How boring. Of course the natural sciences give proof of their assumptions: the atom bomb, space travel, the steam engine, the tv set, are proof of some of the many theories of natural science, so are medicines and almost all the great advances of the 20th century. Evolution cannot give proof because it is not a science.

[Bonaparte]

"Every time I try to read Dembski, I get the awfullest headache."

Then don't read Dembski. His The Design Inference lays it all out rigorously. But considering your adverse reaction to this light essay, the book itself might stroke you out.

[donh]

you claim it to be a proven fact!

I do not, nor do any mainstream scientists I have ever had contact with. I claim it is a theory.

[donh]

The "there is no truth" excuse from evolutinists. How boring. Of course the natural sciences give proof of their assumptions: the atom bomb, space travel, the steam engine, the tv set, are proof of some of the many theories of natural science, so are medicines and almost all the great advances of the 20th century. Evolution cannot give proof because it is not a science.

uh huh. Could you point me to the proof of the theory of gravity?

You can't do it, because there is no such proof anywhere in the literature. All you have is repeated observation that improves you confidence in theories. You have high confidence in all these things you've listed, from repeated observation. But that is induction, which has no formal underpinnings in logic. Proofs are performed using logical deduction. Where, to repeat myself, is your proof of the theory of gravity?

[donh]

lays it all out rigorously.

Uh huh. I have tried to dig into his book a couple of times, but to no avail. As best I can make out, I'd summarize his claim like this: "because we don't know how something happened, it must be impossible". This strikes me as an awful failure of imagination, but maybe it's just me.

[donh]

If you cannot define it, you cannot prove it and in your own words, you cannot define speciation.

Do not confuse the fact that something is more complicated than you had imagined, sufficiently so as to require some statistical math, with its non-existence. I most certainly did explain it to you just now, and quite tangibly, if rather briefly. I will go into nauseating detail if you force me to, but, frankly, I think it likely that you could understand that I have made some rather specific stochastic claims about how evolution works if you gave it even a modicum of thought.

[Bonaparte]

"I'd summarize his claim like this: 'Because we do not know how something happened, it must be impossible."

Then you have not read the book. Here is one of many statements he has made concerning the compatibility of design theory with many concepts of evolution.

"Where does this leave special creation and theistic evolution? Logically speaking, Intelligent Design is compatible with everything from the starkest creationism (i.e., God intervening at every point to create new species) to the most subtle and far-ranging evolution (i.e., God seamlessly melding all organisms together in a great tree of life). For Intelligent Design the first question is not how organisms came to be (though this is a research question that needs to be addressed), but whether they demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle, an evolutionary process can exhibit such "marks of intelligence" as much as any act of special creation."

So, Dembski is not denying that macroevolution is possible, only that the evidence and arguments brought forth for it are weak, especially when compared objectively to the evidence and argument presented by ID. Here he elaborates further. The print is large and eye strain should therefore be minimal.

[Quila]

God made--OWNS science

Wait! I found something intelligible! If God made and owns science, then what's your problem with science? If he made it and owns it, then it can't be against him, it must be his will. Maybe he actually likes us to learn about the world he created rather than learning everything from ancient tribal creation myths.

[Quila]

I could "read--understand" you better if you wrote in standard English.

What is scaring me is that I'm starting to be able to understand. I feel like Daniel Jackson on a new planet in the stargate system.