← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robert
Thread ID: 18345 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-05-22
2005-05-22 23:02 | User Profile
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution
[url="http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm"]http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm[/url]
As scientists explore a new universeââ¬âthe universe inside the cellââ¬âthey are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
by Mario Seiglie
Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.
The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.
Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.
It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossibleââ¬âdiscovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.
The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been decipheredââ¬âalthough many of its elements are still not well understood.
What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.
Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpectedââ¬âan exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores informationââ¬âthe detailed instructions for assembling proteinsââ¬âin the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannicaââ¬âan incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual sizeââ¬âwhich is only two millionths of a millimeter thickââ¬âa teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).
Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?
DNA contains a genetic language
Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).
The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.
The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolutionââ¬âno matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?
DNA language not the same as DNA molecule
Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusionsââ¬ânamely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.
For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the bookââ¬âthe paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.
If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).
The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.
As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).
Information from an intelligent source
In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.
As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering taskââ¬âthe building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).
For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion lettersââ¬âfar from it.
So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.
Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.
He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one stepââ¬âsay, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).
We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.
Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).
Evolution fails to provide answers
It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!
Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accidentââ¬âby mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.
Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).
Quality of genetic information the same
Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.
So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a languageââ¬âalphabet, grammar and semanticsââ¬âin simple bacteria and algae as in man.
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).
Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
The clincher
Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remainingââ¬âthe ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.
Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.
This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earthââ¬âa four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).
More witnesses
Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.
"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).
Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).
Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).
Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolutionââ¬âmostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNAââ¬âstates: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).
Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).
"Fearfully and wonderfully made"
Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).
Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).
All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.
"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).
Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN
2005-05-23 09:52 | User Profile
There is no doubt that biochemistry proves beyond all reasonable dispute that DNA is an ARTIFACT.
That said, biochemistry does not prove who made it precisely. DNA does not prove the existence of God, it only proves the existence of a designer.
Whoever that might be.
But the mind-blowing fact remains that science proves beyond all reasonable dispute that life as we know it was designed by some intelligence. It will take the passing away of closed minded men like Dawson and his generation of fudamentalist materialists before this fact becomes widely accepted.
But that's the way it always works. Copernicus and Galileo spring to mind.
ID will prevail because science is about truth, and the fact of a designer is proved.
2005-05-23 14:23 | User Profile
If faith is simply defined as trust in something credible, then 'blind faith' is trusting in something not credible. From that definition we can easily and convincingly see that it is the materialist evolutionist that exercises blind faith in evolution, a 'belief-system' that grows less and less credible with each and every bit of knowledge we learn about ourselves and the universe we inhabit.
Kind of ironic, actually. The methods and systems that man thought he could use to finally rid us all of God, are actually leading us right back to where we started.
2005-05-24 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Kind of ironic, actually. The methods and systems that man thought he could use to finally rid us all of God, are actually leading us right back to where we started.[/QUOTE]
What has the Bible to do with all of this?
2005-05-24 01:08 | User Profile
[quote=Texas Dissident]Kind of ironic, actually. The methods and systems that man thought he could use to finally rid us all of God, are actually leading us right back to where we started. Science is completely silent on the existence of God. It does disprove Biblical literalism, but that's not a problem for the majority of Christians. Just as no one thinks the sky is a solid firmament, there's no reason to think that the rest of Genesis is anything but mythology designed to teach a moral lesson -- much like Jesus' parables were fictional stories intended to teach moral lessons.
As for DNA disproving evolution, that's obviously false. DNA and related molecules, such as RNA, are the very machinery of evolution. The information in DNA comes from the history of the selective environmental pressures an organism and its progenitors faced. This is well-known to biologists and biochemists.
2005-05-24 07:56 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][B] [I]- "As for DNA disproving evolution, that's obviously false. DNA and related molecules, such as RNA, are the very machinery of evolution." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
Bald assertion (mantra actually) without any evidence attached.
Petr
2005-05-24 08:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Indigo][B] [I]- "As for DNA disproving evolution, that's obviously false. DNA and related molecules, such as RNA, are the very machinery of evolution." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
Bald assertion (mantra actually) without any evidence attached.
Petr[/QUOTE]Well, we've all been through the evidence (at least a little of it) over and over again. Creationists dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
It isn't possible to prove something to those who have already made up their minds that they aren't going to be budged from their contrary position. For example, if you were to try to prove to me that the world is (roughly) spherical rather than flat, I could play a role analogous to the creationist by finding something wrong with anything you post. Try it if you want. If you post a photograph of the earth, I can just say "that photo is fake" or "that only shows the earth from the axis perpendicular to its flat surface." There is always a way to wiggle out. All it takes is some creativity and a firm commitment to one's present position.
2005-05-24 10:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Science is completely silent on the existence of God. It does disprove Biblical literalism
It does no such thing and millions upon millions of intelligent people from the days of Adam to our present day agree. Not to argue a 'might makes right' position, but obviously the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. Given said numbers, the evolutionist is doing a rather poor job and may want to consider riding a different horse. It's all about one's presuppositions and to my mind the old adage about the beginning of wisdom being the fear of God continues to be the truth-standard holding court, if you will.
2005-05-24 15:15 | User Profile
I don't wish to bicker, but...
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It does no such thing and millions upon millions of intelligent people from the days of Adam to our present day agree. I'd say that what people thought prior to the rise of modern science is quite irrelevant. It wasn't that long ago (a little over a century) when even the existence of atoms was in doubt, y'know.
The fact that Biblical creationism is a myth is most easily seen by the lack of a solid firmament in the sky. That alone rules out Biblical literalism. Science isn't even necessary. All that's needed is the knowledge that the sky is not a solid dome that separates the waters above the earth from the waters on the earth.
Not to argue a 'might makes right' position, but obviously the burden of proof is on the evolutionist. Given said numbers, the evolutionist is doing a rather poor job and may want to consider riding a different horse. If you want to talk about numbers, the overwhelming majority of professional biologists, biochemists, geologists, etc. -- all around the world -- say that evolution is an extremely well-supported theory. Those scientists include people of every religion, nationality, and culture. The only thing they have in common is a desire to know the facts about nature. Evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry if that's hard to accept, but it's true.
As I pointed out above, there's no reason why Genesis can't simply be thought of as a kind of parable. No one claims Jesus was a liar because he spoke in fictional parables. Why should it be any different with Genesis?
It's all about one's presuppositions and to my mind the old adage about the beginning of wisdom being the fear of God continues to be the truth-standard holding court, if you will.[/QUOTE]Presuppositions have little to do with science. The test of whether science works is results, particularly in the form of correct predictions. And evolution doesn't contradict any fear of God. Mainstream Christianity certainly doesn't think so.
I honestly don't like arguing about evolution anymore here, since I know your emotions and those of a few others run very high on this issue. But whenever people post something on science that I know isn't true, I feel compelled to address it. My point is that I'm not just defending evolution in order to upset you and the other fundamentalists here. If people start posting nonsense on some other scientific or technical topic -- say, quantum mechanics or microelectronics or something -- you can be sure that I'll feel the need to jump in and rebut them.
2005-05-24 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I'd say that what people thought prior to the rise of modern science is quite irrelevant. It wasn't that long ago (a little over a century) when even the existence of atoms was in doubt, y'know.
Fifty years ago we didn't have scientology either. Doesn't really affect this particular argument. Science has its place and can be a wonderful thing, but it will never answer the big, really important questions. It's like flea trying to swallow an elephant whole. By nature it's just impossible.
The fact that Biblical creationism is a myth is most easily seen by the lack of a solid firmament in the sky. That alone rules out Biblical literalism. Science isn't even necessary. All that's needed is the knowledge that the sky is not a solid dome that separates the waters above the earth from the waters on the earth.
You keep pulling out the firmanent point like a trump card, when it really doesn't hold any water (pun intended :)). I won't do your work for you. All you have to do is one google and hundreds of men more intelligent than me discount that anti-Biblical argument. Of course your knee will then jerk and you'll cast aside all those arguments because of your own bias.
If you want to talk about numbers, the overwhelming majority of professional biologists, biochemists, geologists, etc. -- all around the world -- say that evolution is an extremely well-supported theory. Those scientists include people of every religion, nationality, and culture. The only thing they have in common is a desire to know the facts about nature. Evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry if that's hard to accept, but it's true.
No it's not. Like HH keeps saying, show me the money. If evolution wanted me to believe in it, it would have some half-monkey boy come up to me, shake my hand and grunt hello.
As I pointed out above, there's no reason why Genesis can't simply be thought of as a kind of parable. No one claims Jesus was a liar because he spoke in fictional parables. Why should it be any different with Genesis?
Because Genesis is not a parable. It is either literally true or it isn't. If it isn't literally true, then doubts arise concerning what Scriptures are true and what aren't.
Presuppositions have little to do with science. The test of whether science works is results, particularly in the form of correct predictions. And evolution doesn't contradict any fear of God. Mainstream Christianity certainly doesn't think so.
Ha! Define 'mainstream' Christianity. What specific denominations? Spong's episcopalians? I dare say the great majority of church-attending Christians in this country hold to the doctrinal position of the Bible being the literally true, inerrant Word of God.
As far as presuppositions go, if one is testing an antibiotic in a lab then yes, presuppositions probably don't have much to do with anything. But if you're talking about the nature of man and how we got here, then no, presuppositions have everything to do with how science 'works'.
I honestly don't like arguing about evolution anymore here, since I know your emotions and those of a few others run very high on this issue.
And yours don't?? LOL. If you recheck all the threads on this particular issue, I think you'll find that you are the one constant throughout them all. That's pretty funny.
But whenever people post something on science that I know isn't true, I feel compelled to address it.
So does HH, and all I see is him continuously mopping the floor with the evolutionist's arguments.
My point is that I'm not just defending evolution in order to upset you and the other fundamentalists here. If people start posting nonsense on some other scientific or technical topic -- say, quantum mechanics or microelectronics or something -- you can be sure that I'll feel the need to jump in and rebut them.[/QUOTE]
I'm not upset, Angler. Believe it or not, I think your and other's posts are actually helping my side of these arguments. No se preocupe.
2005-05-24 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Fifty years ago we didn't have scientology either. Doesn't really affect this particular argument. Sure it does. The point is that much more is known about nature now than was known in the past. What people from centuries past thought about such things as the origins of life and the age of the earth is as irrelevant as what they thought about how diseases were caused, the nature of light and matter, etc.
Science has its place and can be a wonderful thing, but it will never answer the big, really important questions. It's like flea trying to swallow an elephant whole. By nature it's just impossible. I agree that science can't answer the question about whether or not some Higher Power exists. Nor is science intended to do so. But science can and does answer questions about nature with extraordinary effectiveness. No other human endeavor comes within light-years of science in that regard.
You keep pulling out the firmanent point like a trump card, when it really doesn't hold any water (pun intended :)). I won't do your work for you. All you have to do is one google and hundreds of men more intelligent than me discount that anti-Biblical argument. Of course your knee will then jerk and you'll cast aside all those arguments because of your own bias. The firmament is a trump card as far as I'm concerned. The Bible says that God created one, yet no such thing exists. Only the most tortuous mental gymnastics could possibly resolve that contradiction. The straightforward explanation is that the writer(s) of Genesis thought that the sky was a solid dome above which rain water was stored, much like other primitive people thought.
No it's not. Like HH keeps saying, show me the money. If evolution wanted me to believe in it, it would have some half-monkey boy come up to me, shake my hand and grunt hello. Those half-monkey boys are all extinct. If you want to shake the hand of one, however, you can go to a natural history museum and grab the hand of one of the fossils. (You might get yelled at. :))
Because Genesis is not a parable. It is either literally true or it isn't. On what premise do you base this?
If it isn't literally true, then doubts arise concerning what Scriptures are true and what aren't. There are doubts about that anyway, even among Christians (e.g., the Apocrypha). Besides, it's not rational to reject a point of view just because you don't like the potential consequences.
Ha! Define 'mainstream' Christianity. What specific denominations? Spong's episcopalians? I dare say the great majority of church-attending Christians in this country hold to the doctrinal position of the Bible being the literally true, inerrant Word of God. I would define "mainstream Christianity" as the beliefs of the largest Christian denominations. The Catholic Church is part of mainstream Christianity, for example. I'm pretty certain that biblical literalists are a minority among Christians worldwide.
I'm sure the percentage of literalists in America (especially in the Bible Belt) is significantly higher than it is in the rest of the world. That's primarily for cultural and social reasons, I think. It's kind of like the way the overwhelming majority of those who actually believe that George Bush talks to God can be found in the US.
As far as presuppositions go, if one is testing an antibiotic in a lab then yes, presuppositions probably don't have much to do with anything. But if you're talking about the nature of man and how we got here, then no, presuppositions have everything to do with how science 'works'. The scientific method used to test antibiotics is precisely the same scientific method as that used to test evolution.
And yours don't?? LOL. If you recheck all the threads on this particular issue, I think you'll find that you are the one constant throughout them all. That's pretty funny. Just because I participate on all these threads doesn't mean I'm emotional about the subject. Like I said, if people were posting untrue stuff about other areas of science, I would be on those threads also.
So does HH, and all I see is him continuously mopping the floor with the evolutionist's arguments. Hardly. For example, here's an example of a computer simulation that HH doesn't think exists:
[url]http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/?page=2[/url]
I'm not upset, Angler. Believe it or not, I think your and other's posts are actually helping my side of these arguments. No se preocupe.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, you've shown signs that people who argue against your beliefs really, really p!ss you off. To your credit, however, you haven't banned anybody for it. You're obviously not a coward like Jim Robinson, who bans people when he can't answer their arguments.
All I can say is that it's not my intention to make anyone angry, nor do I think anyone else has that motivation. But people do get upset, and that's why I kind of wish people would discuss more than just evolution on the Sci & Tech forum here. Maybe I'll post a few articles on other subjects soon to break the ice a bit.
2005-05-25 01:09 | User Profile
Angler:
I agree that "Hubbard's cult" was a red herring, but . . .
[QUOTE]If you want to talk about numbers, the overwhelming majority of professional biologists, biochemists, geologists, etc. -- all around the world -- say that [u]evolution is an extremely well-supported theory[/u]. Those scientists include people of every religion, nationality, and culture. The only thing they have in common is a desire to know the facts about nature. [u]Evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt [/u]. I'm sorry if that's hard to accept, but it's true. [/QUOTE] You contradict yourself, mi amigo. Evolution is a theory, and there is some evidence supporting it. That does NOT prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The ID crowd are not charlatans, nor are all of them Christians. They open their scientific minds up to a wide variety of possibilities. They accept that all we know is a very small portion of what is. (See Bryson's book on "The Brief History of Almost Everything" for a good neutral discussion of how much "we" don't know.) The ICR show a lot of strong evidence on their Flood research, but I don't find their other arguments compelling yet. The Creationists have been at work on the scientific basis for their argument for considerably less time than the dyed-in-the-woll "Evolution is true" crowd have. The evolution school has taken a leap of faith that a series of assumptions is true. Gee, Creationists act on faith. The geological arguments are still a very tough hill for the ICR to climb. (Based on the literature I have read)
I think both camps run into the same limitations that Einstein ran into: you hit a dead end at certain points in exploring and trying to prove a theory. Some things, as you noted, come apart at the quantum level.
So, from the point of physical proof, I am glad to see the debate reopened by those who challenge the dogma of evolution. It has become dogma, and no theory is any better than its assumptions.
[QUOTE] I agree that science can't answer the question about whether or not some Higher Power exists. Nor is science intended to do so. But science can and does answer questions about nature with extraordinary effectiveness. No other human endeavor comes within light-years of science in that regard.
The firmament is a trump card as far as I'm concerned. The Bible says that God created one, yet no such thing exists. [/QUOTE]Actually, I found a very understandable explanation for firmament in The Flood. If the Evolutionists find a whole series of answers in DNA, which they might, the debate will take another turn.
It won't change my faith, and I take pleasure in noting that you agree that Science has trouble with the God thing. Hawking himself ran into a snag.
2005-05-25 03:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Angler:
I agree that "Hubbard's cult" was a red herring, but . . .
You contradict yourself, mi amigo. Evolution is a theory, and there is some evidence supporting it. That does NOT prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. [/QUOTE]Without getting into the evidence for evolution again, I should point out that the word "theory" has a meaning in science different from its meaning in popular usage.
Briefly put, a scientific hypothesis is an educated guess at an explanation for a physical phenomenon. That guess becomes a theory when evidence is found to support it. That evidence can come in the form of successful predictions of future observations, or it can be in the form of successful retrodictions of past observations.
A theory can be modestly supported (e.g., string theory in theoretical physics), or it can be so strongly supported that to doubt it one would have to be insane (e.g., the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease). So, to call something a "theory" is not equivalent to saying that it is somehow a guess or is uncertain. That's the popular usage of the term, not the scientific usage.
2005-05-26 06:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] A theory can be modestly supported (e.g., string theory in theoretical physics), or it can be so strongly supported that to doubt it one would have to be insane (e.g., the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease). So, to call something a "theory" is not equivalent to saying that it is somehow a guess or is uncertain. That's the popular usage of the term, not the scientific usage.[/QUOTE]No argument on your definition, point taken. Evolution versus devolution, however, is a path not often taken, even though there is much evidence. (as in what happens in small populations of near extinct species) that the trend has been devolution. But not overhwleming evidence.
Evolution deserves your scientific title of theory, not hypothesis, due to the body of evidence, both within its own field and related, however, it still rests on assumptions. I would rather science, and more importantly the public debaters who are not scientists, admit that fundamental fact than claim it as The Truth. THAT is where I lose interest in the discussion: I am more encouraged by intellectual honesty.
At the moment, the ICR has an uphill battle, and may not find the evidence to support, on the level playing field of science, their position. I am in no hurry, am patient, as much of what is being discussed is completely irrelevant to my life.
Cheers
2005-05-26 15:53 | User Profile
Evolution (and devolution, just look at the FRAC thread) does occur, that is undisputible.
But, and here's the big caveat, whether or not evolution was responsible for the jump from primordial ooze to what we see today is entirely open to question. That's the "leap of faith" that most evolutionists have to make.
2005-05-26 16:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Evolution (and devolution, just look at the FRAC thread) does occur, that is undisputible.
But, and here's the big caveat, whether or not evolution was responsible for the jump from primordial ooze to what we see today is entirely open to question. That's the "leap of faith" that most evolutionists have to make.[/QUOTE] Why today? Why not a couple of billion years ago when what we had was much more primitive? You think some God was patiently designing life for billions of years, going from some stupid organisms to more and more evolved slowly but steadily? That must be some inexperienced and powerless God then, to take so long.
2005-05-27 00:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Why today? Why not a couple of billion years ago when what we had was much more primitive? You think some God was patiently designing life for billions of years, going from some stupid organisms to more and more evolved slowly but steadily? That must be some inexperienced and powerless God then, to take so long.[/QUOTE] God is not bound by time. I am bound by time. (At least while in this earthly frame.) It is hard for me to frame an understanding of how God takes his time or hurries up, as God does not have to wait or hurry, being unbound by time.
2005-05-27 00:30 | User Profile
If God is learning on the job, then it's not omniscient. Or omnipotent. The ancient people realized that and cooked up a story about going directly from an idea to a ready world in 6 days.
2005-05-27 22:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]If God is learning on the job, then it's not omniscient. Or omnipotent. The ancient people realized that and cooked up a story about going directly from an idea to a ready world in 6 days.[/QUOTE] I am starting to smell glue. :thumbsup:
2005-06-01 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Indigo][B] [I]- "As for DNA disproving evolution, that's obviously false. DNA and related molecules, such as RNA, are the very machinery of evolution." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
Bald assertion (mantra actually) without any evidence attached.
Petr[/QUOTE]
Provide evidence for your assertion then we can better judge.