Search This Blog

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Darwin versus Creation - Faith versus Science/three categories of faith


 "A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back."
Francis Bacon

photo credit
First, an article by Tom Willis and my comments interspersed in blue.

Creation - Evolution Which is Science, Faith, Myth? Simple, But True, Answers

By Tom Willis

In CSA seminars and in Real Scientists Just Say NO! (seepage 3 by following the link above),
we remind you that some 500 years ago science replaced deductive philosophy with induction,
verified by experiment and observation It is quite superior, but still, if you believe any scientific
theory, you do so on faith. 

Real science is about the present operating character of the physical universe
and involves propositions that are precise statements of phenomena that are
thought to be universal, e.g., Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion, “Every action
force has an equal and opposite reaction force.”
Thus the backward
action force of the jet and rocket exert a forward force on the bodies of the craft.


But, man has no way of observing every action force, or knowing whether
he even knows of every type of action force. Therefore, if you believe the
3rd Law, you believe on faith, because we are incapable of ever proving it to
be true. However, every observation of such forces has confirmed the 3rd Law
and none have proved it false. Therefore we classify belief in the 3rd Law as
a Category I faith, a reasonable faith that has been tested countless times 
and is consistent with all relevant observations.

Newton was a devout Christian and his method of scientific deduction is the basic method 
commonly used by scientists today.   However, in the last 150 years the naturalists have snuck
a "no supernatural causes considered or allowed" into the mix.  This is not a scientific decision.
It is a metaphysical opinion inflicted upon science in general because of the religious leanings of
the current rulers of science and academia.  Naturalism is a religion not a scientific fact.  Not 
one Darwinist has the slightest proof that God does not exist and the evidence tends to support  
the idea that God must exist.

Category II faith is belief held with little or no evidence (most religions and “The Chiefs
will win the Super Bowl”).   That Dan Gilbert believes the Cavaliers will win an NBA championship before the Miami Heat win one with LeBron James fits nicely here.

One could have a good discussion about whether Christianity falls into the 2nd Category.  I know
that the amount of evidence you will accept depends greatly upon how much weight you give to the
Bible and first century historians and archaeological evidence as well as the findings of modern science 
which, in my opinion support creation and therefore one would deduce God.   Some aspects of a faith in 
a Creator God will fall into Category I and some into III whereas most are either I or II.

Historical documentation from historians, from the Bible and even from the writings of Hebrew Rabbis of the time of Christ (although there was an attempt to scrub most references to Christ from the Rabbinical chronicles) tell us that Jesus of Nazareth was absolutely observed to have lived and died.   That is Category I.  His miracles are discussed almost entirely within the Bible and thus your opinion of the veracity of scriptures determines how much of that information goes into what category.

Category III faith is a belief held in spite of the evidence (If I persist in believing
“All cars are green” after you have shown me red cars is really delusion, even if I
call it “Science!”)

photo credit







Likewise, Evolutionism is a set of beliefs ...(for instance, I have shown that all information comes from an intelligent source and is not material in form.   I have shown Darwinists a red car and they cannot bear to admit it.)

1. That matter has either been here forever, or self-created in the past.
But neither belief can be directly tested and
both violate one or both of the 1st or 2nd Law of  Thermodynamics. To be here forever, matter must violate the 2nd Law which clearly states that there would be no energy left in a universe that had been here forever.

There is a widely circulated belief amongst non-scientists that the Universe is simply expanding out and then contracting back into itself and then blowing itself up again.  There are numerous problems with this idea, among them the fact that the known mass of the Universe is not great enough to pull the matter back from the current direction of known heavenly bodies,  basically all of which are expanding out away from Earth.  Also, the Second Law  of Thermodynamics teaches us that all energy will have run down and out into entropy and there is no observable way to reverse the downhill process of energy to entropy.   So if the Universe were to go on without outside interference it would experience heat death and that would end that.

To come into existence in real time violates the 1st Law:
“Matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” 

A person may believe in cosmic evolution, but his conviction is blind faith, not science, because
it requires belief in things that have never been observed, cannot be tested, and violate the
most valuable laws of science that we have.

Do NOT believe the canard that the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to the Earth because the Earth is an "open system."   The Laws were observed and formulated here on Earth and they apply here as well as all other areas ever observed.

2. That gravity is adequate to explain the existence of stars, galaxies and planets. But,
such phenomena have never been observed and belief in them requires suspension of
belief in the known fact that the gas laws are vastly more powerful than gravity and they
tend to push matter apart.

3. That Life formed spontaneously in nature. But, such belief violates 400 years of experiments
that led to the Law of Biogenesis (or abiogenesis depending on the commenter),

“Life comes only from life, and [reproduces] after its kind.” 

Not one experiment in the history of man has come even close to producing life. Belief that
“Nature produced life” is not science, it is a Category III faith.

4. That, from “first primitive life” [all life is complex, there is no such thing as “primitive life”],
evolution produced the entire“Tree of Life.” This myth is “supported” only by experiments
that produce trivial change in existing life. Petrii dishes containing bacteria, for example, are lined up
and subjected to chemical treatment. Some or all of the dishes may end up with bacteria resistant to the chemical. Evolutionists shout slogans like “Evolution is just change, change is everywhere,
evolution is a fact.” The claim is absurd, Evolution is not “just change.” Evolution is the belief that bacteria can, and did, change into men, and anything/everything else!

In point of fact, no new information has ever been observed to enter or be formed within the genetic code of bacteria or any other organism.   All mutations have been a result of pre-existing switches within the cell, loss of information via mutation or transfer of genetic information from other bacteria.  Mutations sometimes seem to "add" a feature to an organism, such as the Citrate-eating bacteria that are actually missing a feature, for instance, that would make them less likely to survive in the wild.

In observational science, everything “changes,” you, your car, your son, your wife, all change,
but they do not evolve. We each also develop resistance to many bacteria over the course of our
lives, but do not sire apes, nor was your great grandmother an ape! From thermostats to humans,
science shows that some “adaptation” can be created into systems, but, major changes
are never observed, in houses, bacteria or men. It may be summarized this way: to get from
“simple life forms” to all the types of life we see today requires millions of new biological
structures, skin, scales, arms, wings, hearts, kidneys, etc.

Occasionally when we lose a structure, Man builds (Creates) a poor copy of the  original,
e.g., an “artificial heart or arm.” But there is not one ounce of evidence that “Nature” has ever
produced even one new biological structure in the entire history of the Earth.

This is the problem with Darwinists who keep promoting new fossils as transitionals.  We don't ever see half-wings on pre-bats that cannot yet fly or bombardier beetles that have a partially developed explosive system.  Fossils are of fully formed animals and plants.

Evolution, unlike science, is never observed. It is pure mythology, a Category III Faith,
a belief held in spite of the evidence! Evolutionists may be intelligent and/or “well educated,”
but we all know such people can also be deluded! Empirical science shows the delusion followed
rejection of Truth (“Nature built life”) just as promised by God in 2Thess 2:10, 11.

~



Darwinist delusion is well observed during our discussions on information.  To borrow two of Dr. Gitt's theoroms of information:

"Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have:
Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."
When you read this blog, you know a human mind had to produce the words as a thought first, then that thought (intelligence) was transmitted (information) via a medium (blogspot) so that a recipient (you) could receive that information.   When you see an automobile you understand that it was designed and built by men.
So why do Darwinists see the design and information within the cell and pretend it could have "poofed" by chance into existence?  Blind Category III faith!!!



Figure 14: Certain natural laws are valid for each of the three hierarchical levels; the main concern of this book is the information theorems. The meaning of the arrows are:
  1. Information requires matter for storage and transmission.
  2. Life requires information.
  3. Biological life requires matter as necessary medium. Information and matter fall far short in describing life, but life depends on the necessary conditions prevailing at the lower levels.
Because of the philosophical bias, both information and life itself are regarded as purely material phenomena in the evolutionary view. The origin and the nature of life is reduced to physical-chemical causes. In the words of Jean B. de Lamarck (1744–1829), “Life is merely a physical phenomenon. All manifestations of life are based on mechanical, physical, and chemical causes, being properties of organic matter” (Philosophie Zoologique, Paris, 1809, Vol. 1, p. 104 f).

This is of course false.  Information is not material and it is apparent that the 'spark' of life itself is also not material.  Lamarck is the guy that figured that if you lifted weights and developed strong arms, your children would also have big strong arms so his "science" was on the wishful side.

The German evolutionist Manfred Eigen expressed a similar view [E2, p. 149]: “The logic of life originates in physics and chemistry.” His pupil, Bernd-Olaf K├╝ppers, paved the way for molecular Darwinism, but the present author has already responded to this materialistic view [G14, p. 90–92]. All such ideas have in common that biological facts are interwoven with subjective representations which cannot be justified scientifically. The information theorems formulated in this book, should enable the reader to distinguish between truth and folly.

The code systems used for communication in the animal kingdom have not been “invented” by them, but were created fully functional according to Figure 24. (See the article here.)

Theorem 28: "There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter."

Darwinists do the Ostrich in this case and hide their heads in sands of ignorance, pretending that the definition of information does not apply and that, for instance, a diamond contains information.  Unless you etched a message on it, diamonds do not contain information.   You may make any number of observations about the diamond and then you can produce information yourself that applies to your observation of the diamond.  But nobody ever sat down to read a good diamond or studied a diamond before finals or got an email from a from a diamond.

To be a Darwinist in my opinion requires a Category III level of faith, because you must believe what you do in spite of the evidence rather than because of the evidence. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a believer in a Creator.   But to quote the greatest of 20th Century rocket scientists, Werner Von Braun:

"An outlook through this peephole [that manned space flight had opened] at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science". - View Quote Details on An outlook through this peephole [that manned space flight had…

and

"My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" - View Quote Details on My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge…

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"to the Law of Biogenesis (or abiogenesis depending on the commenter)"

THE STUPID NEVER STOPS AROUND HERE.

Please look up Law of Biogenesis and understand what it's about.

Please look up abiogenesis and understand what it means.

Please understand the difference.

Jon Woolf said...

It is quite superior, but still, if you believe any scientific theory, you do so on faith.

No, you don't. Sensible people who understand science believe a scientific theory based on the inductive principle: given all available information, X is the best explanation currently available. There's always the possibility that new information could shatter the theory and force us to develop a new one. In fact, the history of science is littered with the carcasses of once-successful theories that were killed by new information.

This is, obviously, not the same as religious faith, since the religious Believer does not seriously consider the possibility that his faith might be wrong.

radar said...

"No, you don't. Sensible people who understand science believe a scientific theory based on the inductive principle: given all available information, X is the best explanation currently available. There's always the possibility that new information could shatter the theory and force us to develop a new one. In fact, the history of science is littered with the carcasses of once-successful theories that were killed by new information.

This is, obviously, not the same as religious faith, since the religious Believer does not seriously consider the possibility that his faith might be wrong."

But Jon, you have zero actual evidence for macroevolution so you are going totally on faith here. If we consider laboratory results as falsifiable testing then Darwin has been falsified.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
"the history of science is littered with the carcasses of once-successful theories that were killed by new information."

Sort of like the way "evolutionary theory" is dying. It will be a carcass before long.

Anonymous said...

"Sort of like the way "evolutionary theory" is dying. It will be a carcass before long."

All these violent fantasies of defeating "Darwinism"...

Once someone comes up with a theory that actually fits the evidence better, then it will replace the theory of evolution and whatever other theories.

But in the meantime, creationism is all bark and no bite, all strawman arguments and misinformation. If there were something to it, the dishonesty wouldn't be necessary.

YEC as such is already disproven by the sorting of fossils in the fossil record. Deny it all you want, but YEC can simply not honestly account for this, while mainstream science covered this ages ago.

This is the part where YECs stick their fingers in their ears and go "I can't heeear you!". Next Radar will come up with some just-so story about how the fossils were sorted that again doesn't match what we see in the fossil record.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

But Jon, you have zero actual evidence for macroevolution

I don't think so. Why do you?

If we consider laboratory results as falsifiable testing then Darwin has been falsified.

How? When? By whom? And what exactly did they 'falsify?' There are, after all, at least four distinct concepts within the modern theory of evolution:

1) that genes and gene frequencies in a population change
over time in ways that can be analyzed, observed, and predicted.

2) that these changes in genes and gene frequencies occur via recognized mechanisms of genetic variation followed by natural and sexual selection.

3) That life through geologic time has changed in systematic ways, as illustrated in the fossil record.

4) that the observed changes in genes and gene frequencies, produced by recognized mechanisms of variation and selection, are
sufficient to explain the history of life on Earth over geologic time.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, change is inevitable according to the second law of thermodynamics. But organisms only represent horizontal change or change with information loss. No gain, no Darwinism. You are category three in this area.

There are no category one evidences for Darwinism.

Looking at the rocks and postulating about what they represent is flat ground for Darwin and God. Both sides look at the fossils and rocks and come to conclusions but since we cannot go back to when the rocks were formed none of that evidence is observational. Category two or three in these areas.

creeper, your assertions about the fossil record are preposterous. Darwinists date rock by the fossils found and fossils by the rock layers. But when polystrates show up you shut your mouths and lead people elsewhere. When paraconformities occur, out come the fairy tales. When disparate fossils are found in the same rock strata you ignore it, try to cover it up or claim that catastrophic activities caused fossils to be moved out of their "home" strata.
Anyone who thinks that the geological table is normative around the world and that there is a progression in the fossil record has either not spent much time in the field or is a religious fanatic. Creeper, based on your comments you are a category three fanatic. There is no evidence that will convince you until the day you die.

Jon Woolf said...

But organisms only represent horizontal change or change with information loss.

Assertion, not evidence. Where's your evidence that information can't be added to the genome? For that matter, how do you even tell whether information was added to the genome? Can you quantify genetics, and say that this change was only horizontal but that change involved adding information? If you can't, then this isn't a scientific argument.

Both sides look at the fossils and rocks and come to conclusions but since we cannot go back to when the rocks were formed none of that evidence is observational.

"So's your old man!" isn't a scientific argument either, Radar. Perhaps the above is true for the dilettante who only glances at the rocks. But it's not true for the professionals, the men and women who truly listen to what the rocks say.

Darwinists date rock by the fossils found and fossils by the rock layers.

False.

But when polystrates show up you shut your mouths and lead people elsewhere. When paraconformities occur, out come the fairy tales. When disparate fossils are found in the same rock strata you ignore it,

Examples? Evidence, citations, details of the discoveries?

Creeper, based on your comments you are a category three fanatic. There is no evidence that will convince you until the day you die.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Anonymous said...

"creeper, your assertions about the fossil record are preposterous."

My assertion being that the sorting of fossils in the fossil records is fully explained by the theory of evolution and an old Earth, but can not be explained in the YEC hypothesis?

Well, it IS fully explained by the theory of evolution and an old Earth. If you disagree, how about some specific objections?

And it can not be explained in a YEC scenario. You've offered up some speculations off the top of your head ("specific gravity", "ability to flee") that are so completely slapdash that they don't hold up to even the most cursory examination. They simply don't match the fossil record.

So once again you have this upside down: it is your claim that the fossil record is proof of a global flood that is preposterous, since it's not even compatible with such a scenario, let alone evidence for it.

"Darwinists date rock by the fossils found and fossils by the rock layers."

No, they date rock by radiometric dating, as has been explained to you many, many times, even from a Christian perspective.

"But when polystrates show up you shut your mouths and lead people elsewhere."

That's a lie. We do not shut our mouths and we do not lead people elsewhere. We ask you to back up your claim with specifics; which is when YOU shut your mouth and YOU try to lead people elsewhere.

A polystrate is evidence of rapid sedimentation, no more. That's compatible with an old Earth scenario as well as a global flood scenario.

So that doesn't buy a YEC anything at all.

And if you want to claim that a tree fossil goes through layers representing hundreds or thousands or millions of years, you've got some serious work to do - and provide evidence of specific sites where this actually was found.

How about it? Both Jon and I have asked you about this before, and you haven't come up with the goods.

I'll predict right now that you'll shut your mouth and/or try to lead people elsewhere.

"When paraconformities occur, out come the fairy tales."

Be specific. Which paraconformity, which explanation, and why can the explanation not be right?

"When disparate fossils are found in the same rock strata you ignore it, try to cover it up or claim that catastrophic activities caused fossils to be moved out of their "home" strata."

It seems this was addressed to me, but I've never done any of the things you accuse me of doing. So please stop lying about what I did or didn't do.

No disparate fossils are found before their time in any way that would contradict the theory of evolution. If they are found after their time (Lazarus taxon), then that is an interesting addition to fleshing out the phylogenetic tree, but it is not a falsification of the theory of evolution.

-- creeper