← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 16585 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2005-02-04
2005-02-04 13:08 | User Profile
This thread is an outgrowth of a debate I was having, mainly with Petr, regarding evolution vs. creationism. My purpose here is to critique the following article. This will be done little by little, possibly scattered over many days, since I have to work for a living like everyone else (although today I get to go in late).
The article is here:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp[/url]
I am not going to waste time responding to every single minor claim Sarfati makes -- particularly those in the lengthy rant at the beginning of the article which has much more to do with politics than with science. Rather, I will only focus on his major arguments. If someone demands that I address a certain point, however, then I'll do so.
2005-02-04 13:19 | User Profile
[color=blue]ââ¬Â¦ but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolutionââ¬â¢s truth beyond reasonable doubt.[/color]
This is a debate tactic known as ââ¬Ëelephant hurlingââ¬â¢. This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.
It's not really fair to criticize the author of the original SciAm article (Rennie) for failing to list all the specific evidence for evolution in his opening paragraphs, is it?
Plenty of specifics are offered by evolutionary science. An excellent archive of this information is maintained at the TalkOrigins archive, a site to which I will refer frequently. (This debate is not about the extent of my knowledge or anyone else's, but about the truth or falsity of evolution. That's why I have no problem referring to other sites. If others also wish to do so, then more power to them.)
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]
Here is an example of specific evidence of the sort that Sarfati suggests is lacking:
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ[/url]
Feel free to browse the specific links at the above FAQ and see for yourself just how much evidence is available.
2005-02-04 13:29 | User Profile
[color=blue]1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.[/color]
AiG has also advised against using this, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, because a ââ¬Ëtheoryââ¬â¢ in science means something with a reasonable amount of support, and gives evolution more credence than it deserves.
[color=blue]All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicistsââ¬â¢ conclusions less certain.[/color]
This misses the pointââ¬âthese cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable.
Creation isn't repeatable or observable in real time, either! So how do we know it happened?
Seriously, though -- observations are what have to be repeatable in science, not occurrences. Here's a very simple example. Let's say I want to test whether or not a certain vase I own is breakable. I throw it on the hard floor, and the vase breaks. Even if it were possible, would I have to put the vase back together and repeat the experiment in order to prove that the vase is breakable? Of course not. I merely need to observe the results to come to my conclusion. And I can repeat that observation any time I want to simply by looking at the vase again.
The fossils and genetic evidence for evolution are still there. They aren't going anywhere. People can observe them and run tests on them to their hearts' content. The tests always show the same thing each time.
2005-02-04 13:34 | User Profile
[color=blue]2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.[/color]
Here is another argument we have previously advised creationists not to use, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Why should we argue this, since tautology is quite common in science, and natural selection is an important part of the Creation/Fall framework?ââ¬âSee Q&A: Natural selection.
Tautology is not common in science -- definition is. For example, "the fittest" might be defined as "those who survive when others do not." (I'm not claiming that this is a scientific definition -- I'm only illustrating a point.) Nevertheless, it's good that AiG advised its flock not to use such arguments, since they're silly and tiresome to answer.
2005-02-04 13:43 | User Profile
[color=blue]Microevolution looks at changes within species over timeââ¬âchanges that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.[/color]
But ââ¬Ëevidenceââ¬â¢ doesnââ¬â¢t speak for itself; it must be interpreted. It must be interpreted in light of what is already known through evidence and reason -- not in light of some "holy book."
As Rennie proclaims at the end, this evidence is interpreted within a materialistic framework. Then materialists turn around and proclaim evolution as a major evidence for materialism, which was responsible for it in the first place! To interpret something within a materialistic framework does not make one a materialist. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Nevertheless, many scientists believe in God. Sarfati should know better.
Creationists interpret the same evidence but by a Biblical frameworkââ¬âsee Creation: ââ¬ËWhereââ¬â¢s the Proof?ââ¬â¢. How creationists treat the fossil record is explained in the articles in the book and Q&A page (right). Creationists assume that the Bible is correct from the start. They are flawed in doing so, since there is no evidence that the Bible was divinely-inspired. There is no justification whatsoever for using the Bible as a starting point for doing science!! The materialistic scientific method has a self-evident track record of success. The Bible's supposedly supernatural origins are not validated by ANY real-world observations.
2005-02-04 13:51 | User Profile
DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which again also makes sense in a Biblical framework. A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldnââ¬â¢t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.
Sure, these observations make sense in a Biblical framework. They also make sense in a Zoroastrian framework, and in a Native American religion framework, and in a Hindu framework, and in a Buddhist framework, etc.
Oh yeah -- they make sense in an scientific evolutionary framework, too.
Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanationââ¬âsimilarities between organisms that evolutionists donââ¬â¢t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, molluscs and even in some bacteria. The α-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %), their fellow reptiles.8 An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.9 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution. No one claims that evolutionary science has all the details worked out yet. Does that mean scientists should just throw up their hands and say, "GODDIDIT!"? Creationists think so. Yet if scientists did that, then people would still think bad weather is caused by witches, epilepsy is caused by demons, etc., etc.
2005-02-04 13:58 | User Profile
[color=blue]These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grantââ¬â¢s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).[/color]
And why should creationists deny such things? Yeah, why should they? It's not like such observations contradict the Bible or anything. :dry:
All are part of a created and fallen world, but have never been observed to add new genetic information. His evidence for a "created and fallen world" is...? Bible stories?
Of course mutations can add genetic information, and they have been observed to do so as described here:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html[/url]
[color=blue]Natural selection and other mechanismsââ¬âsuch as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridizationââ¬âcan drive profound changes in populations over time.[/color]
Again, do these profound changes increase information? Populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have; goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different, the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel to not only that population, but to the biosphere. Again, Sarfati is wrong. See the above link. What mutations can do, mutations can undo, and vice versa.
This is enough for now, I think. I have to go to work soon. But as you can see, Sarfati's arguments are easily dismissed.
2005-02-04 14:29 | User Profile
[I][B] - "But as you can see, Sarfati's arguments are easily dismissed."[/B][/I]
I sure am unable to see the easiness. In fact, you seem to mainly concentrate (besides giving links to your beloved Talkorigins) on whining about Sarfati's religion.
(Like PC police keeps repeating in their "scholarly rebuttals" that un-PC scholars are "racists", "anti-Semites", et cetera)
Petr
2005-02-04 22:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I am not going to waste time responding to every single minor claim Sarfati makes -- particularly those in the lengthy rant at the beginning of the article which has much more to do with politics than with science.
I think it's fair enough to let people know about the roots of Scientific American, if only as an aside.
It's not really fair to criticize the author of the original SciAm article (Rennie) for failing to list all the specific evidence for evolution in his opening paragraphs, is it?
In every field there are evolutionist interpretations (e.g. the content of talkorigins.org), but that shouldn't be confused with "weighty evidence." I'd prefer to see the weighty evidence, rather than to hear the claims that there is weighty evidence. Rennie reminds me of the people who were claiming weighty evidence that Saddam was armed to the teach with Weapons of Mass Destruction, yet all the searches have come up empty.
Let's say I want to test whether or not a certain vase I own is breakable. I throw it on the hard floor, and the vase breaks. Even if it were possible, would I have to put the vase back together and repeat the experiment in order to prove that the vase is breakable? Of course not. I merely need to observe the results to come to my conclusion. And I can repeat that observation any time I want to simply by looking at the vase again.
If we were debating where those pottery peices came from, you could show me a video of the vase being broken. You could glue it together and show me it being broken again. You could find another vase and break it and show that the results are essentually identical.
If we were debating where the fossils came from, are you going to show me a video of that species evolving and leaving fossils? Are you going to show me another species evolving to show that the results are essentually identical?
In this analogy, the Evolutionist can't even break a vase. Which is what makes Evolution so utterly unscientific and unacceptable. If their version of how nature works is true, they could show it. But, they can't.
The Creationist has no problem providing examples of Evolution not happening. The claim that Evolution is not part of nature is all that Creationists claim, with regard to the scope of darwinism. There are no supernatural claims by Creationists in this scope.
To interpret something within a materialistic framework does not make one a materialist. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Nevertheless, many scientists believe in God. Sarfati should know better.
How does the belief in God fit into a materalistic framework? The Theistic Evolutionists I know try to salvage Evolutionist theories by plugging God into the gaps. That seems hypocritical to me, as well as argument from ignorance (which, ironically, is what you accuse Creationists of doing).
There is no justification whatsoever for using the Bible as a starting point for doing science!!
If the Bible didn't stand up, then it would be right to reject it. But, that's not the case.
Sure, these observations make sense in a Biblical framework. They also make sense in a Zoroastrian framework, and in a Native American religion framework, and in a Hindu framework, and in a Buddhist framework, etc.
Oh yeah -- they make sense in an scientific evolutionary framework, too.
Does this mean you don't think DNA similiarity is evidence of Evolution because it fits into any model? I don't know about American Indians or Zoroaster, but I certainly agree that DNA similarity is not evidence of Evolution. Circumstancial evidence is weak, but Evolutionists don't have the luxury of direct evidence for what they should be able to directly observe.
No one claims that evolutionary science has all the details worked out yet. Does that mean scientists should just throw up their hands and say, "GODDIDIT!"? Creationists think so.
That looks like a confession that Creationism must be rejected, regardless of the evidence. If you were a primative African who found a watch on the beach, would refuse to to throw up your hands and say "Someone made it."? It wouldn't be "scientific" to follow the evidence to a non-naturalistic explanation. If your friend said, "I was told a story about a guy who makes watches...", you've made clear that you'd still know better.
See the above link. What mutations can do, mutations can undo, and vice versa.
What mutations can do, they can undo? Sure. But, that's not relevant. Can mutations provide the creativity needed for Evolution? From a purely scientific view, the answer is NO.
I saw the link above. It said something like "increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]" That kind of thing should be a footnote, not the substance of an argument. In other words, it's a bluff. Which reminds again, Evolutionists cannot point to any real example of Evolution so all they can do is bluff and pass off their speculative stories as evidence itself.
2005-02-07 19:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "But as you can see, Sarfati's arguments are easily dismissed."[/B][/I]
I sure am unable to see the easiness. In fact, you seem to mainly concentrate (besides giving links to your beloved Talkorigins) on whining about Sarfati's religion.
(Like PC police keeps repeating in their "scholarly rebuttals" that un-PC scholars are "racists", "anti-Semites", et cetera)[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read what I have to say more carefully and actually go to the links I post. Then you might have something more substantial to contribute to this discussion than juvenile barbs and sarcasm.
2005-02-07 19:45 | User Profile
Happy Hacker:
Unlike Petr, you seem to be interested in having a reasonable, civil discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all your points right now -- I have to leave the house in five minutes. I'll try to reply again tonight or tomorrow.
2005-02-07 23:58 | User Profile
"Creationists assume that the Bible is correct from the start. They are flawed in doing so, since there is no evidence that the Bible was divinely-inspired. There is no justification whatsoever for using the Bible as a starting point for doing science!! The materialistic scientific method has a self-evident track record of success. The Bible's supposedly supernatural origins are not validated by ANY real-world observations."
I have not read a credible materialistic explaination of metaphysical or first causes. No one has ever gotten beyond the "unmoved mover". The big bang postulate does not explain where the material for the big bang came from in the first place or what caused it to explode.
Also, assuming that time, space, energy, and matter have always existed is taking a bigger step of faith that those of us who believe that God created all these things in the beginning.
2005-02-08 00:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]"Creationists assume that the Bible is correct from the start. They are flawed in doing so, since there is no evidence that the Bible was divinely-inspired. There is no justification whatsoever for using the Bible as a starting point for doing science!! The materialistic scientific method has a self-evident track record of success. The Bible's supposedly supernatural origins are not validated by ANY real-world observations."
I have not read a credible materialistic explaination of metaphysical or first causes. No one has ever gotten beyond the "unmoved mover". The big bang postulate does not explain where the material for the big bang came from in the first place or what caused it to explode.
Also, assuming that time, space, energy, and matter have always existed is taking a bigger step of faith that those of us who believe that God created all these things in the beginning.[/QUOTE] I agree completely that there must be a "prime mover" -- something is self-existent -- and I also agree that said prime mover could very well be a supernatural being. This is why I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
On the other hand, I see no reason why it is any more plausible that the universe -- or whatever physical phenomena caused its creation -- was created by a conscious being rather than merely self-existent. I used to think as you do, i.e., that it was most likely that some transcendent being probably created the universe. Since then, however, I've shifted my views slightly. Nature is incredibly mysterious, especially at its most fundamental level. After years of studying subjects such as quantum mechanics and seeing just how counterintuitive physical reality can be, one tends to become very humble in the face of it all. I guess you could say that I've started to view nature itself as almost "god-like" (I only mean that metaphorically -- FWIW, I do NOT subscribe to pantheism or any of that stuff). But of course there's much more to be learned, and there's still much that science is silent about. Therefore, I view the odds that the universe itself was created as being about 50-50.
Of course, even if it could be determined that the universe must have been created, that hardly means that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God must have created it. It is entirely possible that a God exists but that every single religion is totally wrong about Him.
2005-02-08 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]In every field there are evolutionist interpretations (e.g. the content of talkorigins.org), but that shouldn't be confused with "weighty evidence." I'd prefer to see the weighty evidence, rather than to hear the claims that there is weighty evidence. Rennie reminds me of the people who were claiming weighty evidence that Saddam was armed to the teach with Weapons of Mass Destruction, yet all the searches have come up empty. Did you get a look at this link I posted earlier?
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html[/url]
It's well worth the time it takes to go through it all.
If we were debating where those pottery peices came from, you could show me a video of the vase being broken. You could glue it together and show me it being broken again. You could find another vase and break it and show that the results are essentually identical. But that wasn't the analogy -- my hypothetical debate was about whether or not the vase was breakable. Once the vase is broken and can be seen to have been broken, no further observation is necessary.
If we were debating where the fossils came from, are you going to show me a video of that species evolving and leaving fossils? Are you going to show me another species evolving to show that the results are essentually identical? It's not necessary to do so, just as it's not necessary to view the inside of the sun to know that nuclear reactions are taking place there.
The fossil record, which includes plenty of transitional fossils (please see the above link), has been examined along with DNA extracted from those fossils. This process has provided the empirical evidence for evolution. If you reject this evidence, then no one will ever be able to prove to you that evolution occurred. But then again, I could make it impossible for you to prove to me that the earth isn't flat simply by rejecting any evidence you show me. For example, you might show me photos of the earth from space, and I could simply respond, "They're all fake." That's why it's important to at least be willing to be convinced.
In this analogy, the Evolutionist can't even break a vase. Which is what makes Evolution so utterly unscientific and unacceptable. If their version of how nature works is true, they could show it. But, they can't. The time scales involved in evolution are much too long to observe within human lifetimes. But let's say you found a vase that was broken 1,000 years ago. You would still be able to answer the question "was this vase breakable" -- wouldn't you?
This cannot be emphasized enough: Science does NOT require direct observations of events to determine whether or not those events occurred (or are still occurring). If we fly over a mountain with a smoking hole in the top and see molten rock cooling around the base of the mountain, we know that a volcano has just erupted even though we never saw the eruption actually happen.
The Creationist has no problem providing examples of Evolution not happening. The claim that Evolution is not part of nature is all that Creationists claim, with regard to the scope of darwinism. There are no supernatural claims by Creationists in this scope. I'm not sure what you mean by an "example of evolution not happening." Could you provide one?
How does the belief in God fit into a materalistic framework? The Theistic Evolutionists I know try to salvage Evolutionist theories by plugging God into the gaps. That seems hypocritical to me, as well as argument from ignorance (which, ironically, is what you accuse Creationists of doing). I am not a huge fan of the "theistic evolution" school of thought, but I brought them up simply to prove the point that people who accept evolution are NOT necessarily atheistic. Even the Catholic Church, which is extremely conservative when it comes to dogma (note its immovable stance on abortion, homosexuality, and even female clergy), has admitted that the evidence for evolution is very strong and that it is not un-Christian to accept it.
As far as plugging God into the gaps, that's something I personally try to avoid, since I know that history has not been kind to those who've done this (e.g., those who burned epileptics or Tourette's sufferers as witches when attempted exorcisms failed). But I still think the theistic evolutionists have a far more tenable position than the creationists. The TEs are plugging God into the gaps where human knowledge is lacking (e.g., how the first proto-life formed from complex molecules), but the creationists plug God into gaps where no gaps exist! One position at least holds water; the other doesn't.
If the Bible didn't stand up, then it would be right to reject it. But, that's not the case. I was a Christian for 30 years. Toward the end of that time, I began to read the Bible and study it harder than ever -- thinking carefully about it, reading commentaries, praying earnestly for insight into its meaning, etc. The end result was that I became increasingly aware of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, and I was forced to endure the pain of accepting that what I had believed my whole life was wrong.
Please note that even as a Christian I fully accepted evolution. Neither evolution nor any other aspect of science was ever an impediment to my faith. I still took Genesis as divinely-inspired -- I thought of it as a divinely-inspired parable. What caused me to lose my faith in the Bible was the Bible itself. The more I read it, the more convinced I became that it was mythology written by men, just as you are convinced that the story about Muhammed being God's messenger is mythology.
Does this mean you don't think DNA similiarity is evidence of Evolution because it fits into any model? I don't know about American Indians or Zoroaster, but I certainly agree that DNA similarity is not evidence of Evolution. Circumstancial evidence is weak, but Evolutionists don't have the luxury of direct evidence for what they should be able to directly observe. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Its strength can be assessed by using it in a model to predict other discoveries or observations and then seeing whether those predictions come to pass.
Evolution has certainly been used to predict future fossil discoveries, and it has been very successful. For example:
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we wouldn't have been able to say otherwise. These predictions don't have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we haven't found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
Evolution has been the basis of many predictions, for example:
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests [Bull and Wichman 2001].
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html[/url]
That looks like a confession that Creationism must be rejected, regardless of the evidence. If you were a primative African who found a watch on the beach, would refuse to to throw up your hands and say "Someone made it."? It wouldn't be "scientific" to follow the evidence to a non-naturalistic explanation. If your friend said, "I was told a story about a guy who makes watches...", you've made clear that you'd still know better. There is no evidence for creationism. There is no scientific evidence that all the animals were made a week of the first man, etc. To the contrary, all available scientific evidence from all relevant fields (biology, geology, etc.) contradict the assertions of creationism. Also, the Bible says nothing about atoms, bacteria, viruses, galaxies, or anything else that we would expect God to know about. It does mention a "firmament," though, into which "floodgates" were incorporated. It also says that the firmament was put there to separate the waters above the earth from those below. (The writer(s) must have thought that the sky was blue because it held water.) Basically, the Biblical story of creation appears exactly as we would expect it to if it were written by a bunch of ancient people with no divine inspiration whatsoever.
What mutations can do, they can undo? Sure. But, that's not relevant. Can mutations provide the creativity needed for Evolution? From a purely scientific view, the answer is NO. The creativity does not come from mutations alone; it comes from the pressures placed on mutating organisms by their environments.
I saw the link above. It said something like "increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]" That kind of thing should be a footnote, not the substance of an argument. In other words, it's a bluff. Which reminds again, Evolutionists cannot point to any real example of Evolution so all they can do is bluff and pass off their speculative stories as evidence itself.[/QUOTE] You looked at all the evidence here?
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html[/url]
2005-02-08 02:58 | User Profile
I read the Safarti article and he seems to know his stuff. Still, why you chose someone who believes Genesis is literally true is beyond me. If you want to tackle an opponent of Darwinism, how about Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, or Michael Denton? Or [url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science]Stephen Meyer[/url]?
From The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories:> Thus, whether one envisions the evolutionary process beginning with a noncoding region of the genome or a preexisting functional gene, the functional specificity and complexity of proteins impose very stringent limitations on the efficacy of mutation and selection. In the first case, function must arise first, before natural selection can act to favor a novel variation. In the second case, function must be continuously maintained in order to prevent deleterious (or lethal) consequences to the organism and to allow further evolution. Yet the complexity and functional specificity of proteins implies that both these conditions will be extremely difficult to meet. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism appears to be inadequate to generate the new information present in the novel genes and proteins that arise with the Cambrian animals. By the way, I'm an atheist.
2005-02-08 03:12 | User Profile
[B] - "Still, why you chose someone who believes Genesis is literally true is beyond me. If you want to tackle an opponent of Darwinism, how about Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, or Michael Denton? Or Stephen Meyer?"[/B]
Because we need [I]no steenkin' compromises[/I] with evolutionists. I am an extremist by nature.
Petr
2005-02-08 04:06 | User Profile
Well, Petr, if the argument is about the literal truth of Genesis, then I will bow out. I have no intention of getting into religious arguments. I was engaging Angler on the truth of Darwinism, about which even atheists can be skeptical.
2005-02-08 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I read the Safarti article and he seems to know his stuff. Still, why you chose someone who believes Genesis is literally true is beyond me. If you want to tackle an opponent of Darwinism, how about Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, or Michael Denton? Or [url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science]Stephen Meyer[/url]?
From The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories:By the way, I'm an atheist.[/QUOTE] Hi Stanley,
I didn't exactly choose that article out of the blue. Petr posted it on another thread in response to my position.
Contrary to your opinion, I don't think Safarti knows his stuff at all. He might know a lot about his chosen field (if I recall, that's spectroscopy -- interesting stuff, but largely irrelevant to evolution), but he's philosophically inept. How else do you explain a person who equates the interpretation of evidence based on the axioms of naturalistic science with interpretations based on the Bible? Sarfati is willfully and utterly blind to the fact that, while naturalistic science has a staggering track record of success, the Bible has no demonstrated success as a basis for scientific inquiry. How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the Bible as a starting point? (I'm not referring to historical/archaeological discoveries, of course -- any ancient book can provide clues that lead to such findings.)
Science gets real-world results. That is how the scientific method has been validated. The Bible has never been validated in any respect apart from some of its historical content (and even much of that is suspect).
2005-02-09 00:24 | User Profile
[I][B] - "How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the Bible as a starting point?" [/B] [/I]
How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the orthodox Darwinian anti-design theory as a starting point, and only because of that?
Petr
2005-02-09 03:03 | User Profile
Hi Angler
When I said Safarti knows his stuff, I meant that he is familiar with the arguments that other anti-Darwinians (such as the ones I named) use. As for your claim that the neo-Darwinians are advocates of science, that is the question. Are they? It is hard for laymen to judge, but when I read their arguments, I smell something fishy. And unfortunately, the sciences can be corrupted. Charles Murray claimed as much in the The Bell Curve.
Anyway, if this thread is a discussion about biblical inerrancy, I'd just as soon stay out. Let's continue the discussion of Darwinism elsewhere. I suggest the post Walter Yannis made on Behe.
2005-02-09 03:19 | User Profile
[B][I] - "And unfortunately, the sciences can be corrupted. Charles Murray claimed as much in the The Bell Curve."[/I][/B]
Could you elaborate on this? I have not read "[I]The Bell Curve[/I]" myself.
I definitely think that scientists aren't such incorruptible pursuers of objective truth (instead of career and grant money) as secularist mythology leads us to believe.
This silly search of life from outer space (SETI) is an exorbitantly costly, evolution-dogma driven "Big Science" hustling par excellence.
Petr
2005-02-09 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the Bible as a starting point?" [/B] [/I]
How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the orthodox Darwinian anti-design theory as a starting point, and only because of that?
Petr[/QUOTE] We have 23 chromosomes, while chimps have 24. This lead to the hypothesis that one of the human chromosomes should resemble two chimp chromosomes fused together. This was confirmed by observation.
More details here: [url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html[/url]
Now it's your turn. Please answer the question: How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the Bible as a starting point?
2005-02-09 03:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "And unfortunately, the sciences can be corrupted. Charles Murray claimed as much in the The Bell Curve."[/I][/B]
Could you elaborate on this? I have not read "[I]The Bell Curve[/I]" myself.
I definitely think that scientists aren't such incorruptible pursuers of objective truth (instead of career and grant money) as secularist mythology leads us to believe. And yet you depend on "secularist mythology" every single day of your life.
As far as scientists "only pursuing money," that's quite ridiculous. Scientists are notoriously underpaid for the amount of time, education, and effort it takes to become one. And prospective scientists know this, but they go into their chosen fields anyway -- sometimes for prestige, but usually just out of sheer, intense interest in the subject.
The surest way to fame and fortune in science is to make a discovery that shatters the current status quo. To do so will really make a scientist stand out from the crowd. Of course that's not so easy to do, but revolutionary new discoveries and theories do take place from time to time.
This silly search of life from outer space (SETI) is an exorbitantly costly, evolution-dogma driven "Big Science" hustling par excellence.[/QUOTE]Whether or not spending on SETI is justified is a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that it is NOT justified. But what does SETI have to do with evolution? Surely you don't think that, since extraterrestrials aren't mentioned in the Bible, they must not exist? (Atoms, bacteria, and viruses aren't mentioned in the Bible, either....)
2005-02-09 03:48 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Please answer the question: How many proven scientific discoveries have been made using the Bible as a starting point?"[/I][/B]
Well, let's see. What would you qualify as a "starting point"?
How about the entire Western science as we know it?
[B]from Rodney Stark’s “For the Glory of God” (2003, Princeton University Press), pages 147-148:[/B]
[SIZE=3] [B]THE CHRISTIAN DIFFERENCE [/B] [/SIZE]
[COLOR=Indigo]My answer to this question is as brief as it is unoriginal: Christianity depicted God as rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.
As Nicole Oresme put it, God’s creation “is much like that of man making a clock and letting it run and continue it sown motion by itself.”(78) Or, in the words of Psalm 119:89-90: “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.” Among the scriptural passages most frequently quoted by medieval scholars is the line from the Wisdom of Solomon (11:20) “(T)hou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight.”
In contrast with the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science because they believed that it could be done, and should be done. [B]As Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science … derivative from medieval theology.”(79[/B]) Whitehead’s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published: How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica (1910-1913) make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific enquiry?
Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else. As he explained:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue][I][B]"I don’t think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism in to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power for research: - that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?
"When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left for themselves, there seems but one source of its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in the rationality. Remember that I am not talking about of the explicit faith of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not a mere creed of words.(80)[/B][/I][/COLOR]
[COLOR=Indigo]Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of Gods found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. Any particular “occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot” God, or might be produced by “some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the dame confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.”(81)
Indeed, most non-Christian religions do not posit a creation at all: the universe is eternal and, while it may pursue cycles, it is without beginning or purpose, and, most important of all, having never been created, it has no Creator. Consequently, the universe is thought to be a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary. For those holding these religious premises, the path to wisdom is through meditation and mystical insights, and there is no occasion to celebrate reason.
2005-02-09 03:49 | User Profile
[B][I] - "And yet you depend on "secularist mythology" every single day of your life."[/I][/B]
No, I do not rely on evolutionary dogmas and fantasies on my everyday life. Kindly stop confusing them with actual science.
[I][B]- "But what does SETI have to do with evolution?"[/B][/I]
You MUST be just playing dumb if you cannot see the connection - since the evolution is supposed to happened so easily here on earth, they postulate that it could/should have happened in many other places in this universe as well.
Petr
2005-02-09 04:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]Hi Angler
When I said Safarti knows his stuff, I meant that he is familiar with the arguments that other anti-Darwinians (such as the ones I named) use. As for your claim that the neo-Darwinians are advocates of science, that is the question. Are they? It is hard for laymen to judge, but when I read their arguments, I smell something fishy. And unfortunately, the sciences can be corrupted. Charles Murray claimed as much in the The Bell Curve. From Catholic scientists in the US to Buddhist scientists in China, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted among the worldwide scientific community. What would cause scientists from all over the world, from a wide variety of cultures and religious traditions, to collaborate on a grand falsification of the evidence for evolution? What could all those people hope to gain? There is no common thread among them apart from their expertise and interest in science.
The common thread among the detractors of evolution, however, is religious fundamentalism. That tells the whole story right there. They refuse to even consider the evidence because it hurts too much psychologically.
Anyway, if this thread is a discussion about biblical inerrancy, I'd just as soon stay out. Let's continue the discussion of Darwinism elsewhere. I suggest the post Walter Yannis made on Behe.[/QUOTE]I haven't had a chance to read Behe's work or that of other ID folks yet. I've heard his arguments hold little water, but I won't judge that myself until I'm more familiar with them.
2005-02-09 04:07 | User Profile
Here's AIG's take on that chimpanzee-chromosome stuff:
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.[/B][/SIZE]
A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp[/url]
And "Buddhist" scientists of China? More like Marxist atheists.
Also, here's an interesting anecdote:
[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"This article is reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999. [/B]
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "[B]In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin[/B]."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm[/url]
[B]- "What could all those people hope to gain?" [/B]
Never underestimate the power of herd mentality and the systematical refusal of fallen men to consider themselves designed and created.
Petr
2005-02-09 04:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "And yet you depend on "secularist mythology" every single day of your life."[/I][/B]
No, I do not rely on evolutionary dogmas and fantasies on my everyday life. Kindly stop confusing them with actual science. It's all the same scientific method.
[I][B]- "But what does SETI have to do with evolution?"[/B][/I]
You MUST be just playing dumb if you cannot see the connection - since the evolution is supposed to happened so easily here on earth, they postulate that it could/should have happened in many other places in this universe as well. [/QUOTE]There is no connection whatsoever. Maybe life was created on earth but evolved on other planets. Maybe life was created on other planets but evolved on earth. Maybe life was created both on earth AND on other planets. Or maybe life evolved both on earth and on other planets.
Do you get it now, whiz kid?
2005-02-09 04:12 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Do you get it now, whiz kid?"[/I][/B]
No, I don't. It's meaningless semantic quibbling, like artificially separating the issues of abiogenesis and mechanism of evolutionary process from each other.
Petr
2005-02-09 04:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Here's AIG's take on that chimpanzee-chromosome stuff:
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.[/B][/SIZE]
A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluatedââ¬âby evolutionists themselves.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp[/url]
The exact percentage of similarity between human/chimp genomes, whether 95% or 98%, is a minor point. The agreement between genomes is still substantial. The key point is that the evidence suggests that two chimp chromosomes fused together to form one in the human set of chromosomes.
And "Buddhist" scientists of China? More like Marxist atheists.
Even if all Chinese scientists were Marxist atheists -- which they clearly are not -- that was just one example, using one country. There are many others, from many nations and religions, all around the world. They have no common agenda other than an interest in scientific discovery.
Also, here's an interesting anecdote:
[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"This article is reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999. [/B]
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "[B]In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin[/B]."[/COLOR] So? Maybe he's wrong.
[url]http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm[/url]
[B]- "What could all those people hope to gain?" [/B]
Never underestimate the power of herd mentality and the systematical refusal of fallen men to consider themselves designed and created.[/QUOTE]That doesn't answer the question.
Maybe it's "man's fallen nature" that accounts for creationists' refusal to be honest with themselves about God's methods of creation.
Assume that there is a God who created the universe, the earth, and mankind. In that case, we KNOW He created the earth and all that we see in it, including the available evidence for evolution. We do NOT know that God had a hand in the Bible.
If God exists and created mankind, then He did it using evolution. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Facts are facts.
2005-02-09 04:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Do you get it now, whiz kid?"[/I][/B]
No, I don't. It's meaningless semantic quibbling, like artificially separating the issues of abiogenesis and mechanism of evolutionary process from each other.
Petr[/QUOTE] Just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And if you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, then you are entirely clueless.
2005-02-09 04:54 | User Profile
[B][I] - "And if you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, then you are entirely clueless."[/I][/B]
And what might this vital difference be? Enlighten us. The horse sense says that without the spontaneous birth of first life, the whole evolution process can't even get started.
[B][I]- "The key point is that the evidence [U]suggests[/U] that two chimp chromosomes fused together to form one in the human set of chromosomes."[/I][/B]
Notice the word "suggests". Namely, a suggestion based upon evolutionist presuppositions.
Petr
2005-02-09 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "And unfortunately, the sciences can be corrupted. Charles Murray claimed as much in the The Bell Curve."[/I][/B]
Could you elaborate on this? I have not read "[I]The Bell Curve[/I]" myself. Petr[/QUOTE]I don't have the book in front of me, so let me give you a personal anecdote which I think explains what he meant.
I was a student at UCLA in the 70s. I attended a psychology class in which the professor tried to explain away the black-white IQ gap. He said things like "we don't know what intelligence is," "IQ tests don't measure anything," etc., etc. And yet, he would cite IQ tests, when it made a point he wanted to make. The hypocrisy and bad faith was obvious to me.
To give you another example, on a completely different subject, check out [url=http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail347.html#prostitute2]The science of climate has been buried alive by an avalanche of ideology-based computer models[/url].
2005-02-09 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]What would cause scientists from all over the world, from a wide variety of cultures and religious traditions, to collaborate on a grand falsification of the evidence for evolution? You make it sound like a conspiracy. More like a mindset or paradigm, a tendency to see as proof evidence that to an outsider is not convincing.> The common thread among the detractors of evolution, however, is religious fundamentalism. Arthur Koestler was an atheist who was critical of Darwinism. He thought there had to some naturalistic explanation for how life came about, but he did not think the Darwinists had it.> I haven't had a chance to read Behe's work or that of other ID folks yet. I've heard his arguments hold little water, but I won't judge that myself until I'm more familiar with them.[/QUOTE]Have you read the other authors I mentioned? Philip Johnson (Darwin on Trial), Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).
2005-02-09 19:02 | User Profile
Intelligent Design (ID) is definitely beginning to break into mainstream: Michael Behe has just written an opinion editorial on "New York Times" magazine.
(article reproduced here:
[url]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2415&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage[/url]
[COLOR=Indigo]
[B][SIZE=4]Design for Living[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The Basis for a Design Theory of Origins[/SIZE]
By: Michael Behe
The New York Times February 7, 2005[/B]
Original Article
Bethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")
The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.
Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.
The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
[I]Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."[/I][/COLOR]
2005-02-09 19:59 | User Profile
Walter Yannis has already posted that article.
2005-03-10 20:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Did you get a look at this link I posted earlier?
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html[/url]
It's well worth the time it takes to go through it all.
There are two big problems with that article. First, not one of those proposed transitionals are without significant problems. Second, even if each example in that article looked like a perfect transitional, they would still be anomolies that do not represent the fossil record. There are billions of fossils in the fossil record, they should all be transtionals yet the Evolutionists can only point to a few dozen highly dubious examples of transitionals.
But that wasn't the analogy -- my hypothetical debate was about whether or not the vase was breakable. Once the vase is broken and can be seen to have been broken, no further observation is necessary.
You know what vases look like. You know what broken vases look like. You've seen vases break (or objects similar to vases). You're assuming that fossils look like what Evolution would produce, even though you've never seen Evolution. You've never seen fossils that you "know" were left by Evolution.
Comparing fossils to a broken vase proves nothing. Analogies don't create proof.
It's not necessary to do so, just as it's not necessary to view the inside of the sun to know that nuclear reactions are taking place there.
We've observed fusion. We can create fusion and we understand how it works. Yet, the only reason we know the sun uses fusion is because of neutrinos that the sun produces (where there's smoke, there's fire). So, we do view the inside of the sun by viewing what is coming from the inside of the sun. If we did not see neutrinos, we would not believe there is fusion in the sun.
The fossil record, which includes plenty of transitional fossils (please see the above link), has been examined along with DNA extracted from those fossils. This process has provided the empirical evidence for evolution.
In the article you linked to, I didn't see anything about DNA extractions demonstrating evolution. In fact, the mere existence of DNA in those fossils would prove they're not so old because DNA spontaneously breaks down and in 10,000 years, there shouldn't be any left. This is a fact based on emperical observation of DNA decay rates.
Even if DNA lasted millions of years and Evolution were true, it would still be wrong to call any observation of DNA to be emperical evidence for Evolution. The only emperical evidence for Evolution would be to see Evolution. That of course has never been done, even though it should be trivial if Evolution were true.
If you reject this evidence, then no one will ever be able to prove to you that evolution occurred. But then again, I could make it impossible for you to prove to me that the earth isn't flat simply by rejecting any evidence you show me. For example, you might show me photos of the earth from space, and I could simply respond, "They're all fake." That's why it's important to at least be willing to be convinced.
The Earth has been emperically observed to be round. That is, we've seen the Earth is round. Sure, unless you board a plane, you're going to have to take the word of others for the roundness of the Earth. I don't dispute (at least if it has been confirmed by others) any observation of Evolutionists. I dispute their conclusions.
The time scales involved in evolution are much too long to observe within human lifetimes. But let's say you found a vase that was broken 1,000 years ago. You would still be able to answer the question "was this vase breakable" -- wouldn't you?
We've seen thousands of generations of fruit flies, bacteria, and other rapidly reproducing organizisms. Yet, we've seen no evolutionary trend. If there's no trend in thousands of generations of fruit flies, why would there be such a trend in millions of generations of fruit flies? If there's no trend in thousands of generations of fruit flies, why would there be a trend in thousands of generations of primates? How about millions of generations of virtual life in a computer? We've had plenty long to observe.
Inability to observe something doesn't mean that we should lower the standard for proof.
This cannot be emphasized enough: Science does NOT require direct observations of events to determine whether or not those events occurred (or are still occurring).
The scientific method demands observation and reproducibility.
If we fly over a mountain with a smoking hole in the top and see molten rock cooling around the base of the mountain, we know that a volcano has just erupted even though we never saw the eruption actually happen.
Why do you continue to compare Evolution, a never observed event, with commonly observed events? What other scientific fact is there that we know is a fact but which we have never observed?
I'm not sure what you mean by an "example of evolution not happening." Could you provide one?
Sure, a dog giving birth to a dog. DNA comparisons between modern humans and ancient Egyptian mummies. Crabs, starfish, moss animals, claims, and every other major marine invertabrate that exists now has existed through most of the fossil record as crabs, starfish, moss animals, clams, etc.
I am not a huge fan of the "theistic evolution" school of thought,
They're the ones who when asked "What caused the Big Bang" they reply "God did it." But, as you yourself observed, Creationists do not use God to plug gaps. Why do you think "God of the gaps" is the more tenable position? Compromise by definition means you're not going to get to the truth.
I was a Christian for 30 years. Toward the end of that time, I began to read the Bible and study it harder than ever -- thinking carefully about it, reading commentaries, praying earnestly for insight into its meaning, etc. The end result was that I became increasingly aware of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, and I was forced to endure the pain of accepting that what I had believed my whole life was wrong.
I'm very aware of the problems with the Bible. But, you are in denial of the problems with Evolution.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Its strength can be assessed by using it in a model to predict other discoveries or observations and then seeing whether those predictions come to pass.
NeoEvolution makes no predictions. Every circumstance can be made to fit Evolution.
Evolution has certainly been used to predict future fossil discoveries, and it has been very successful. For example:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html[/url]
The first example is "Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence." Ignoring that there's no reliable fossil evidence of apes evolving into humans in Africa, do you think if fossil evidence of human evolution were found in Asia that Evolution would be refuted?
There is no evidence for creationism. There is no scientific evidence that all the animals were made a week of the first man, etc.
No one is claiming that science shows man and all animals were created in one, the first, week. Besides, you're getting into abiogenesis. What's the Evolutionst track record there?
The creativity does not come from mutations alone; it comes from the pressures placed on mutating organisms by their environments.
Still, nature requires the creativity needed for Evolution, mutations and selection combined.