Search This Blog

Monday, March 13, 2006

The Dialogue continues.....Darwin/Creation

ANNOUNCING!

The time has come for another Darwin Is Dead Carnival. The last carnival received entries from five pro-creation sources and none from the viewpoint of the opposition. Debate has been lively between myself and others and a number of commenters, making the comment threads longer than the posts in some cases.

Darwinists and non-Darwinists alike are invited to send in your entry to the contest. Please submit your entry to the link provided by March 31st. The Carnival entries will be posted on the first Monday in April, which is April 3rd.

This is your chance to have your essay posted on this site for the world to read.


CAN'T WAIT FOR CREATION VERSUS MACROEVOLUTION INFORMATION??????


Help yourself to the following websites that disseminate interesting information. There are others, but this is a few of the best available:

True Origins

The Institute for Creation Research


Answers in Genesis



Discovery Institute


Uncommon Descent

Dissent From Darwin

ID The Future


Remember, no matter which side you believe you will get an equal chance to be posted on this blog. Go for it!

11 comments:

creeper said...

Here are a few more websites that disseminate interesting information:

Evolution & Creation debate links.

Understanding Evolution - a good starting point.

Talk.Origins - an excellent collection of the major and minor arguments in the evolution/creation debate.

An Index to Creationist Claims - just about all of the claims made by creationist have been gathered here, along with their rebuttals. If you run across one of these claims (or intend on making one yourself), it's definitely worth checking in here to see the argument's flaws.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

No Answers In Genesis.

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation".

Evolution, Scientific Creation, Uniformitarian Geology, and Flood Geology.

Talk.Origins' Quote Mining Project.

An excellent essay: Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design by Kenneth R. Miller.

Arguments a creationist thinks creationists should NOT use. (from Answers In Genesis)

The Dead ID sketch.

Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

Creationist Geologic Time Scale.

Bogus Noah's Ark From Turkey Exposed As A Common Geologic Structure.

Articles In Opposition To Creationism.

Mark K. Sprengel said...

The Dead ID sketch is filled with the usual bs.

Jake said...

Radar, I doubt very much that any actual biologists will want to dignify this with entries.

radar said...

Actual Biologists? Dignify? It sounds as if biologists are royalty far too good to hobnob with average folk. Me, I am leaving it up to those who wish to enter. I will cull out anything profane, but otherwise even if your entry is absolutely foreign to my beliefs it will be officially entered.

Jake said...

No, but scientists have a vested interest in maintaining a high level of scientific literacy in the population in general. By participating in this carnival, a biologist would give the impression that there is actually something to discuss, that there are legitimate scientific reasons to doubt the theory of evolution, and that's simply not true.

Scientists are not in the business of legitimising pseudoscience

radar said...

"No, but scientists have a vested interest in maintaining a high level of scientific literacy in the population in general. By participating in this carnival, a biologist would give the impression that there is actually something to discuss, that there are legitimate scientific reasons to doubt the theory of evolution, and that's simply not true.

Scientists are not in the business of legitimising pseudoscience"

Man, what a beautiful arrogance! I could say that Darwinism is pseudoscience and there are all sorts of scientists bent upon legitimizing it for philosophical reasons.

I will say that Darwinist macroevolution has huge problems. Some understand this, and research further. Others stick their heads in their doctrinal sand and pretend that Darwinism is all there is...

When ignorance is intentional, it becomes stupidity. When a mind is so completely closed off that the fresh breeze of new ideas cannot enter in, will it die of willful smugness?

Some have the courage to present and debate ideas, while others stand on the sidelines and naysay. I am looking for people with the courage of their convictions and the ability to express their thoughts coherently to enter the next carnival, Jake. If you haven't got the goods, fine. Hopefully there will be a few Darwinists who take up the gauntlet and maybe even some who drop the condescending tones and give it to us straight. I can only hope.

creeper said...

"When a mind is so completely closed off that the fresh breeze of new ideas cannot enter in, will it die of willful smugness?"

Since when is young earth creationism "the fresh breeze of new ideas"? It's the ultimate orthodoxy, isn't it?

Jake said...

It's not a question of arrogance, simply of understanding what science is and how it works.

What falsifiable hypotheses have YECs come up with? How do they propose to test them? What work has been done in testing them? How have they been revised based on that work?

radar said...

"What falsifiable hypotheses have YECs come up with? How do they propose to test them? What work has been done in testing them? How have they been revised based on that work?"

From Timothy Wallace...Five empirically falsifiable hypotheses that are integral parts of young earth creationism.

1) The order found in the fossil record

-General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

2) Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems

- Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

3)Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information

- Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation


falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

4) Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

- Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

5) Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes

- Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

Jake said...

-General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the idea of a global flood some 4000-5000 years ago would predict the geological column we have. The question is this: What's your null hypothesis? (i.e. what would you expect if there had been no flood?) How is that different from what you would expect given a flood. Is a global flood the only thing that would cause the situation we currently have?

Have these questions been answered?

2) Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems

- Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No


In what way does YEC predict this? What is the mechanism by which this happened? Is YEC the only hypothesis that would predict this?

3)Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information

- Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation


falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

In what way does YEC predict this? What mechanism is proposed to produce this? What is your null hypothesis here?

4) Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

- Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation

falsifiable? Yes
falsified? No

If thermodynamics works the way you seem to think it does, how is that consistent with your development from a cluster of undifferentiated cells to a complex multicelled organism with differentiated organs and tissues?


These are all just-so stories. You take things that modern science (the same modern science that supports evolution!) has discovered, and plonk them on top of YEC, saying, effectively "well, the world is like this, therefore God must have created it this way." That's all well and good as a belief system, but it's not how science works. The one absolutely key question in science, the question that you failed to answer in all your examples, is this one:
How have the hypotheses been changed based on new data?

The YEC hypothesis hasn't changed in hundreds of years. *That* is not science.

Jake said...

Further information, from the Wikipedia page on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics:

Complex systems and the Second Law

It is occasionally perceived that the Second Law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation or the coming into existence of complex systems. As considered further in the article on self-organisation, this is a misconception.

In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as their cooling passes a critical temperature. Complex structures also spontaneously appear in systems where there is steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).

Some opponents of evolution have claimed that life exhibits a kind of complexity which is of a different nature to the autonomous complexity and self-organisation which is permitted by the Second Law. Overwhelming scientific opinion is that this is not well-founded and no such distiction can be sustained. For further discussion see Creation-evolution controversy.