Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The best article you will ever read concerning brainwashed atheists...

First things first.  Ignorance is not stupidity.  If I say someone is ignorant that does not mean I am calling them stupid.  Furthermore, if you have been brainwashed then a crime has been committed against your mind.  I do not intend it as an attack on anyone personally but rather seek to awaken deadened minds to new concepts.   There has been an intentional and continual drive to brainwash the public

The new discussion is built on the ignorance of the comment threads.  The obvious problem observed in the comments thread,  in the minds of the Darwinists, is a classic break in the logical chain caused by years of brainwashing.  Science is NOT synonymous with naturalistic materialism.  Naturalist Materialism is a point of view.  Creationism is a point of view.  Atheism is a point of view.  If you adhere ardently to a point of view then it is your religion.  Therefore even as there is Christianity there is also Deism and Buddhism and Atheism and not one of them controls science because point of view is subjective rather than objective.  When a Darwinist tries to equate his belief system with "science" he is trying to cram science into his little bitty religion.   When he demands that you do the same...he is proselytizing you.   The religion of Darwinism is taught in public (some call them government) schools as science.  It would be enough to make Newton gag and Galileo spit on the ground. 

Science does not work like a game of Risk, where you keep conquering territories until you are the master of the board by the sheer strength of numbers.   Nor is it an opinion poll, where whoever comes out ahead is winning.  It is not an election where the Darwin Party and the God Party are running with the Intelligent Design Party being a third party wanna-be.  Science is a matter of observation and testing evidence and there are good systems in place to review scientific work that have been tilted to the point of ruin by the intrusion of the Darwinist religion.  It does not matter how many guys named Steve believe in a hypothesis that runs contrary to the laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis simply because they prefer to exclude the possibility of a supernatural Creator.  Science has been kidnapped and held for ransom by a tyrannical bunch of bullies who censor and shun and get people fired if they do not bow the knee to Secular Humanism/Naturalistic Materialism/Darwinism.  Thus, we spend millions listening for a message from little green men and give billions in grant money to try to find what does not exist - Macroevolution.  Doesn't happen and in fact it cannot happen because we have learned enough about the cell and DNA to see that we have the absolute reverse operation in play - Devolution. 

What is impressive is the general ignorance of the people who have passed through government schools and managed to never learn how to think critically or to examine their own motives and belief systems, but have rather swallowed the entire Darwinist mantra whole!  How can you be so blind?   It is painful to me to read the replies of the hopelessly brainwashed, apparently unable to stop and take a moment to review the situation.  When your belief system sinks and is gone in the prebiotic soup of reality, take stock and rethink!  Only this time don't go back into thieving discredited hypotheses and stuffing them into science.  Take a new path...

 photo credit

Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability

Published: 5 March 2009(GMT+10)
Image Wikipedia.org
Galileo Bonaiuti de’ Galilei
Galileo Galilei 

Last week, we answered a poorly informed atheist about DNA complexity, and cited Gordy Slack, an evolutionist himself, agreeing that “some proponents of evolution are blind followers”. This week, we provide another example. Varun S. of Switzerland makes a number of false assertions that he could have corrected with a little study of our website. The letter is first posted in its entirety, then answered point by point by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
For my part, I’m a biologist first but more so an atheist. I see you are hell bent on trashing Darwinian evolution. Let me remind you that the church ordered Galileo to stand trial for heresy in 1633, because he provided undeniable proof that went against the stand that your holy scriptures take. And yet despite mounting evidence in subsequent years for the heliocentric model, the church chose to accept it’s mistake on the 31st of October 1992, nearly 360 years after he was made to stand trial. But it didn’t really matter did it, whether the church accepted it or not, because most people in the world had.
I think the main reason why the church in particular was breaking its back on trashing the heliocentric model was because it goes beyond the general notion of the bible that defines the earth to be god’s special creation (hence assigning it a special place in the universe). If someone initiates a debate on the creation of biomolecules from a pre-biotic soup, you conveniently quote Fred Hoyle “This is akin to the probability of a tornado moving through a junkyard resulting in the assembly of a complete Boeing 747” but you fail to see the other side of the coin, the Drake equation for example, or even the fact that there are 1011 galaxies in the universe, each with 1011 stars, so the probability of life arising in more than one of these is not small, in fact it’s a finite value. You conveniently forget Miller’s experiments and its extensions, which demonstrated the synthesis of amino acids and other important molecules such as nucleotides (required for DNA and RNA synthesis) from inorganic molecules in conditions that simulate very well, the early earth.
Your so called Young Earth Creation researchers (if such a term is applicable) state that dinosaurs coexisted with man, despite radiometric evidence. If such were the case, why have paleontologists never discovered fossilized humans of similar age?
YEC has failed to make any impact. 50% of the population in the United States still agrees that humans evolved from lower life forms and this number is only higher outside the US. In fact the Roman Catholic Church itself accepts the possibility of theistic evolution (or Christian Darwinism).
Throughout history, the church has made nothing more than a fool of itself, constantly demeaning valid scientific theories. I challenge all young earth creationists to set up an experiment of your own to prove that the earth is 6000 years old, without pointing to some random passage in the bible.True, Evolution is not a complete theory and there are still gaps and issues that one doesn’t understand, but the evidence for it mounts with each passing day and it’s only a matter of time before Evolution emerges as a valid scientific theory that will be universally accepted and I’d give anything to see the faces of YECs when that day comes.

For my part, I’m a biologist first but more so an atheist.
Nice to see that you have your priorities right—emphasising your faith above your science!
I see you are hell bent on trashing Darwinian evolution.
Of course; trashy theories deserve to be trashed, and it’s appropriate for the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.
Let me remind you that the church ordered Galileo to stand trial for heresy in 1633,
No need to remind us, thanks, since we have plenty of articles addressing the widespread misinformation on this. Indeed, I recently wrote one myself, since it’s the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s turning his telescope to the sky. But as for “heresy”, science historian John Heilbron provides further evidence in his book The Sun in the Church.1
 
Far from opposing astronomical research, the church supported astronomers and even allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories—hence the subtitle of science historian Heilbron’s book, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories

In this book, favourably reviewed by the secular science journals New Scientist2 and Science,3 he points out:
“Galileo’s heresy, according to the standard distinction used by the Holy Office, was ‘inquisitorial’ rather than ‘theological’. This distinction allowed it to proceed against people for disobeying orders or creating scandals, although neither offence violated an article defined and promulgated by a pope or general council. … Since, however, the church had never declared that the Biblical passages implying a moving sun had to be interpreted in favour of a Ptolemaic universe as an article of faith, optimistic commentators … could understand ‘formally heretical’ to mean ‘provisionally not accepted’.”4
Heilbron supports this simply by documenting the general reactions by Galileo’s contemporaries and later astronomers, who:
“appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance”.5
This is shown by the fact that far from opposing astronomical research, the church supported astronomers and even allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories—hence the subtitle of Heilbron’s book, Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. These observatories, called meridiane, were ‘reverse sundials’, or gigantic pinhole cameras where the sun’s image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral’s lantern onto a meridian line. Analyzing the sun’s motion further weakened the Ptolemaic model, yet this research was well supported. And Arthur Koestler documented that only 50 years after Galileo, astronomers of the Jesuit Order, ‘the intellectual spearhead of the Catholic Church’, were teaching geokinetic astronomy in China.6
because he provided undeniable proof that went against the stand that your holy scriptures take.
As explained before, there is no conflict with Scripture, but there was plenty of conflict with the establishment science of his day (Aristotelianism).
And yet despite mounting evidence in subsequent years for the heliocentric model,
Nice admission, albeit inadvertent—i.e. the evidence in Galileo’s time was far from conclusive, and his own best “proof” involving the tides was fallacious. It’s only fair to judge people according to the evidence they had available, not with 20/20 hindsight.
the church chose to accept it’s mistake on the 31st of October 1992, nearly 360 years after he was made to stand trial.
Yes, Pope John Paul II apologized, for what was largely a matter of personality politics of his predecessor and of Galileo himself. Dr Thomas Schirrmacher documents in his paper The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?:
“Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.”
The habit of public apology for things for which one bears no personal responsibility changes the whole concept of a virtuous person, from one who exercises the discipline of virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person of all is he who expresses it loudest and to most people. This is a debasement of morality, not a refinement of it.—Dr Theodore Dalrymple

In any case, apologies for the past are quite fashionable and not too much should be read into them. In Australia, we had an official government apology for alleged stolen generations of Aborigines, and the Church of England cravenly apologized to Darwin last year. But I think that the British social commentator Dr Theodore Dalrymple, a physician who worked in prisons and slums as well as third world hospitals, and not a Christian, nailed this whole approach in False Apology Syndrome: I’m sorry for your sins:

But official apologies for distant events, however important or pregnant with consequences those events may have been, are another matter entirely. They have bad effects on both those who give them and those who receive them.

The effect on the givers is the creation of a state of spiritual pride. Insofar as the person offering the apology is doing what no one has done before him, he is likely to consider himself the moral superior of his predecessors. He alone has had the moral insight and courage to apologize.
On the other hand, he knows full well that he has absolutely no personal moral responsibility for whatever it is that he is apologizing for. In other words, his apology brings him all kudos and no pain.

This inevitably leads to the false supposition that the moral life can be lived without the pain of self-examination. The locus of moral concern becomes what others do or have done, not what one does oneself. And a good deed in the form of an apology in public for some heinous wrong in the distant past gives the person who makes it a kind of moral capital, at least in his own estimation, against which he can offset his expenditure of vice.

The habit of public apology for things for which one bears no personal responsibility changes the whole concept of a virtuous person, from one who exercises the discipline of virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person of all is he who expresses it loudest and to most people. This is a debasement of morality, not a refinement of it. The end result is likely to be self-satisfaction and ruthlessness accompanied by unctuous moralizing, rather than a determination to behave well.

The effect on some of the recipients of such apologies is likely to be very bad also, for similar though slightly different reasons.

It isn’t very difficult to discern what lies behind it: money, and lots of it. Nor does it require extraordinary powers of prediction or foresight to know who would get the lion’s share of any such money that was forthcoming.

Most of the pioneering work on geokineticism was performed by young earth creationists.

But even when money is not involved, there are deleterious effects on the recipients of what one might call class-action apologies. Just as those who give them become convinced of their own virtue, so do those who receive them. It is enough that they should be considered victims for them to conclude that they can do no wrong, or at any rate no wrong worth talking about. For what is a personal peccadillo to set beside a great historical wrong?

An apology of this kind, then, or even the supposition that such an apology ought to be forthcoming, exerts a liberating, that is to say loosening, effect upon personal morals. For what can I do wrong to compare with the wrongs that my ancestors suffered at the hands of your ancestors? How dare you even mention it, you hypocrite!

False Apology Syndrome — which is not yet found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association or the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition — is a therefore rich but poisonous mixture of self-importance, libertinism, condescension, bad faith, loose thinking, and indifference to the effects it has on those who are apologized to.

I am, of course, sorry if you disagree.
But it didn’t really matter did it, whether the church accepted it or not, because most people in the world had.
As before, most of the Church at the time had, too! Indeed, most of the pioneering work on geokineticism was performed by young earth creationists: Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), a Canon in the church; Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) who made Galileo’s theory match observations when he worked out that the planets move in ellipses, and famously said his scientific research was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”; and Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), who worked out the laws of motion and gravity to explain all this, wrote more to defend the Bible’s history than he did about science—and Galileo himself! Oh, before you think of it, I’ve already addressed Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?
I think the main reason why the church in particular was breaking its back on trashing the heliocentric model was because it goes beyond the general notion of the bible that defines the earth to be god’s special creation (hence assigning it a special place in the universe).
Wrong again—this is anachronistic misunderstanding of what they thought at the time. As I’ve pointed out:

For much of church history, the centre was regarded as the lowest place to be. … So moving the earth away from the centre was, in the context of the middle ages, actually exalting it.
For much of church history, the centre was regarded as the lowest place to be. At the lowest was Hades at Earth’s centre, and the abode of man on Earth’s surface was the next worse, quite corrupted compared to heavenly perfections. The further away from the centre, the closer to heaven you were thought to be.

The moon, as fairly close to Earth, was regarded as a transitional place. The sun was in a higher plane, planets were pretty good, in their spheres made of the imperishable fifth element (quintessence), but not as exalted as the distant fixed stars, while the firmament was depicted as beyond even the stars, and God’s realm was further beyond that.

So moving the earth away from the centre was, in the context of the middle ages, actually exalting it.
If someone initiates a debate on the creation of biomolecules from a pre-biotic soup, you conveniently quote Fred Hoyle “This is akin to the probability of a tornado moving through a junkyard resulting in the assembly of a complete Boeing 747”
Image Wikipedia.com
Rubik's cube
A classic Rubik’s Cube, scrambled. 

And this was quite reasonable when it comes to the origin of the first living cell via chemical evolution. We might also quote his comparison with blind men and Rubik’s cubes.
but you fail to see the other side of the coin, the Drake equation for example, or even the fact that there are 1011 galaxies in the universe, each with 1011 stars, so the probability of life arising in more than one of these is not small, in fact it’s a finite value.
Au contraire, we consider not only stars and galaxies, but even the number of atoms in the observable universe, and the probabilities is still infinitesimally small. E.g. in my book By Design, I point out:
One could calculate the probability of obtaining all these proteins in the right sequence. Certainly there is some leeway in many, but not around the active sites. However, in others there is hardly any leeway, e.g. the histones that act as spools around which DNA wraps in chromosomes, ubiquitin which is ubiquitous in organisms apart from bacteria and essential for marking unwanted proteins for destruction,7,8 and calmodulin, the ubiquitous calcium-binding protein which has almost all of its 140–150 amino acids ‘conserved’ (the same in all organisms).

Image Wikipedia.com
DNA
The structure of part of a DNA double helix

Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’—i.e. the sequence was so vital that natural selection conserved it by eliminating variants. As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.
  • 20 amino acids
  • 387 proteins for the simplest possible life
  • 10 conserved amino acids on average
  • ∴ chance is 20–3870 = 10–3870.log20 = 10–5035
  • This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
  • 1080 atoms in the universe
  • 1012 atomic interactions per second
  • 1018 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
  • ∴ only 10110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10–4925.
And since we’re on the Drake Equation, the late Michael Crichton had some insightful things to say about this in his serious lecture whimsically titled Aliens cause global warming:
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.
You conveniently forget Miller’s experiments and its extensions,
Of course: that’s the point of having articles like Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis—so that such experiments can be conveniently ‘forgotten’ (i.e., legitimately dismissed).
which demonstrated the synthesis of amino acids
The Drake equation can have any value from ‘billions and billions’ to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.—Michael Crichton

Indeed, and under such conditions as they are useless for life. They are always produced in trace amounts and grossly contaminated with molecules that would inhibit polymerization, and are racemic rather than the exclusively one-handed forms required for life.
and other important molecules such as nucleotides (required for DNA and RNA synthesis) from inorganic molecules
Nucleotides most certainly are not the product of such experiments. Even the three components of nucleotides—phosphate, sugar, base—are produced in traces at best in mutually incompatible conditions. The base cytosine lacks a plausible prebiotic synthesis. See detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis by evolutionary chemist Cairns-Smith and Nucleic acid bases in Murchison meteorite?
in conditions that simulate very well, the early earth.
Apart from such minor details as having the wrong atmosphere, as well as strategically designed traps to isolate the molecules from the destructive energy source that formed them.
Your so called Young Earth Creation researchers (if such a term is applicable) state that dinosaurs coexisted with man, despite radiometric evidence.
You mean like the evidence for rapidly decaying 14C in diamonds, which shouldn’t be there if they were millions of years old? And old earth evolution dilettantes state that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, despite the evidence of blood cells and blood vessels having been found in their bones today, which would hardly have lasted that long.
If such were the case, why have paleontologists never discovered fossilized humans of similar age?
Why haven’t they discovered coelacanths and whales fossilized together, although they live in the sea today?
YEC has failed to make any impact. 50% of the population in the United States still agrees that humans evolved from lower life forms and this number is only higher outside the US.
Considering the exclusive evolutionary indoctrination in the media and government educracy, 50% not believing in goo-to-you evolution shows that we are making an impact—hence widespread calls of alarm, evolutionary paranoia and dissidents Expelled.
In fact the Roman Catholic Church itself accepts the possibility of theistic evolution (or Christian Darwinism)
Ah yes: You may be a fundamentalist atheist if…
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he’s just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.
Many Catholics do not accept evolution however, following their Church Doctor Thomas Aquinas, a six-day creationist. Indeed, on 23 February, Catholic scientists, philosophers, and historians gathered in Rome at the National Research Council for a symposium entitled, “The Theory of Evolution: A Critical Analysis” (“La Teoria dell’ Evoluzione: Un Bilancio Critico”. A report stated, among other things, something most interesting and relevant to a topics discussed in this reponse:

[In Miller–Urey experiments, amino acids] are always produced in trace amounts and grossly contaminated with molecules that would inhibit polymerization, and are racemic rather than the exclusively one-handed forms required for life.
Dr Jean de Pontcharra followed [sedimentologist] Guy Berthault by demonstrating the unreliability of radiometric dating for long ages. Despite very impressive and powerful measurement and characterization tools, and physical and chemical analysis methods, Dr. Pontcharra demonstrated that the dating of rocks using radioactive elements requires very basic assumptions whose validity has not been demonstrated. In the particular case of K/Ar method, the presence of excess Ar and the impossibility of correcting the bias introduced call into question the entire “model ages” results obtained during the last several decades in palaeontology.
On behalf of his co-authors, Dr Josef Holzschuh and Dr Jean de Pontcharra, research chemist Hugh Miller then presented the results of several years of research in the 14C (radiocarbon, RC) dating of dinosaur bones. The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. When Triceratops and hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum , Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for 14C testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ± 170 RC years for the hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna. Although the radiocarbon dates are not absolute dates, the fact that dinosaur bones consistently possess the same radiocarbon ages as other megafauna such as mastodons known to have been contemporary with man flatly contradicts the evolutionary time scale according to which dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.9
Throughout history, the church has made nothing more than a fool of itself, constantly demeaning valid scientific theories.
Yet according to Rodney Stark in his book For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery:
The reason we didn’t know the truth is that … for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.

In this chapter, I argue not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. In demonstration of this thesis [I show that] not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century … Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology … The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.
Furthermore, Stephen Snobelen (Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada) wrote:
Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.10
Also, Peter Harrison (Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, and a Fellow of Harris Manchester College) wrote in his book The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of natural science:
It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.
Furthermore, he wrote:
Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.11
NB, we would usually call this hermeneutic “plain”, “historical-grammatical” or “originalist” rather than “literal”, i.e. what the text meant to the original readers (cf. Snobelen above).
I challenge all young earth creationists to set up an experiment of your own to prove that the earth is 6000 years old, without pointing to some random passage in the bible.
We don’t point to random passages, but to passages chosen for their relevance. After all, the Bible is the record of the Creator, who knows when He created. His counsel (Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1) is far better than relying on dating methods with their assumptions—even though many of those still point to an age far younger than evolution requires.
True, Evolution is not a complete theory and there are still gaps and issues that one doesn’t understand,
Many evolutionists demand that creationists abandon biblical creation because of an apparent anomaly, but if an evolutionist can’t answer something, then it’s ‘the whole purpose of science is to solve problems.’ If that’s true, then the same allowance should be made for creationists.

Indeed so. Yet many evolutionists demand that creationists abandon biblical creation because of an apparent anomaly, but if an evolutionist can’t answer something, then it’s ‘the whole purpose of science is to solve problems.’ If that’s true, then the same allowance should be made for creationists. And obviously, the truth of Christianity doesn’t entail infallible knowledge by every Christian!
but the evidence for it mounts with each passing day
Ipse dixit. Rather, increasing evidence for design mounts every day, including intricate features that human designers are learning from. Conversely, many of the alleged proofs for evolution have been discounted, e.g. staged photos of peppered moths, Haeckel’s forged pictures alleging embryonic recapitulation and similarities, the alleged Ostraea to Gryphaea evolution which was merely ecophenotypic change. Indeed, when I was in high school, Ramapithecus was taught as a human ancestor, but now it’s thought to be a variety of orangutan. My boss Dr Carl Wieland remembers being strongly influenced when young by National Geographic touting Zinjanthropus boisei as a human ancestor, which is completely discounted today.
and it’s only a matter of time before Evolution emerges as a valid scientific theory that will be universally accepted and I’d give anything to see the faces of YECs when that day comes.
Irrelevant: something can be universally accepted and still be wrong. As Peter Medawar (1960 Nobel laureate for his work on tissue grafts and an evolutionist himself) put it:
I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionally strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination.11

Related articles

Further reading

Recommended Resources



11 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

What is impressive is the general ignorance of the people who have passed through government schools and managed to never learn how to think critically or to examine their own motives and belief systems, but have rather swallowed the entire Darwinist mantra whole!

[jokerlaugh.wav]

Someday you'll learn not to underestimate your opponents, Radar. And on that day I shall mourn, for a great source of unintended humor will have gone out of the world.

I was much like you, once -- not you now, but you as you've described yourself before you turned to the dark side and became a creationist. Most of what I knew about science was stuff I'd learned in school or by reading nature and wildlife books. Then I went onto Compuserve, joined the Dinosaurs Forum, and bumped into a gentleman by the name of Jon Covey, a well-known and very active creationist from southern California. he was so active, and so vociferous, and seemed so sure of himself, that I honestly wondered whether there might be something to creationism.

So I started reading. A lot. I read Morris. I read Gish. I read Wysong. And Baumgardner, and Woodmorappe, and Brown, and a bunch of others.

But here's where we parted ways: I didn't just take their word for it. I did what a good skeptic should do: I investigated both sides. I read Gould. And Eldredge. Robert Bakker. James Horner. Darwin himself. Conway Morris. Weiner. Ruse. Gardner. Miller. And many, many more. I also took the time to learn a bit of anatomy and geology, and do a little fieldwork myself, so that I could see what the masters saw and verify that indeed, the world looks like they say it does and their interpretations of it make sense.

At every turn I found the same thing: the evidence supports an old Earth, and creationists freely distort and lie about that evidence in order to "support" their pseudoscientific claims. When you look at the evidence with a knowledgeable eye, creationism is no more credible than the legends of Pellucidar and Atlantis. And most of its purveyors have about as much credibility as Eric von Daniken and his "chariots of the gods" snake-oil.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, presenter of opinion rather than fact. I am next going to post on the Miller-Urey myth and I am quite sure you will bring just as much evidence to the table as you have this time.

It does not matter what books you have read if you have not come to a logical conclusion. C-14 dating is passe in that we can find it in diamonds! That we still find DNA and tissue in supposedly multi-million year old fossils tells us that the old earth hypothesis has some major problems. At the basis of these problems is the failure to adjust for the Noahic Flood and consider what massive changes were wrought upon the Earth at that time.

Jon, adding to your misery by fortifying the walls of your religious adherence to Darwinism will not last. Eventually someone is going to finally admit that life is not something that could have *poofed* into existence and then God will be welcomed back as part and parcel to good science, just as He was for hundreds of years before a few dread miscreants managed to convince the world of a fairy tale and an evil one at that.

Belief in a Creator God inspired science to systematically study the world with confidence. Darwinism has brought racism and genocide and censorship and tyranny to science and the world at large, led by men such as Hitler and Galton in times past and Richard Dawkins today who prefer completely unscientific fairy tales to already proven laws of nature.

Jon Woolf said...

It does not matter what books you have read if you have not come to a logical conclusion.

I agree. That's why I'm not a creationist ... and why I can't help but grin at you, as you sing the praises of logic, reason, and open-mindedness in one sentence, then defend YEC in the next.

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

Why don't we ever find fossils of elephants and sauropods together, Radar? Or ichthyosaurs and dolphins? Pliosaurs and whales?

Why is it that we can use evolutionary theory to make predictions of what organisms we might find in which rock layers, and then go there and find those critters?

Why can we use trace molecules to classify crude oil, and identify the rocks it came from ... and those trace molecules are always consistent with the conventionally-determined age of those source rocks?

A 'genetic bottleneck' is a clear signal of a population crash in a species' recent past, down to fewer than a hundred breeding individuals. Of all the animals that allegedly survived the Flood aboard Noah's Ark, why is it that only one is suffering today from a genetic bottleneck?

Why does the Petrified Forest in Arizona include only gymnosperms, no angiosperms at all?

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon?

How does YEC explain the presence of fossil caves and drainage basins in the rock record -- in the Grand Canyon, among other places?

What's the YEC explanation for index features like the K-T clay layer -- features that are found all over the world, in a wide variety of depths and geologic settings, but always mark the boundary between major geologic systems, as that clay layer marks the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary?

On and on I could go. Hundreds of questions, thousands of questions. They all can be answered by conventional geology. But YECists like you run for cover rather than even try to answer them.

radar said...

Jon, Jon, Jon...running away from the question (singular) by barfing out a whole slew of unrelated questions, some of which have been answered and none of which are on topic.

The first and big point is that you cannot possibly have life *poof* into existence by natural causes, which puts all your other presumptions into crash-and-burn mode. You need God to create life and input information.

Darwinism is anti-science because the true believers ignore the Law of Biogenesis and the 2LOT and try to prop up the abject failure of Miller-Urey and all subsequent attempts but they have all failed. In other words, evolution has been tested and it has been falsified both in terms of life creation and the production of new kinds from old. Never happens.

Just like the information question, you are the one running away. It is obvious that life was designed, so what are you going to do with that information? Hold on to your old superstitions or rethink? Because it is you who is placing religion above reason.

Jon Woolf said...

running away from the question (singular) by barfing out a whole slew of unrelated questions, some of which have been answered and none of which are on topic.


Of course they're on topic. The topic is how badly creationism fails when confronted with the facts, and how your continued allegiance to it belies your claim that you value logic and facts.

The first and big point is that you cannot possibly have life *poof* into existence by natural causes,

An assumption on your part. You can't prove it.

Darwinism is anti-science because the true believers ignore the Law of Biogenesis...

There is no Law of Biogenesis.

...and the 2LOT...

Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

and try to prop up the abject failure of Miller-Urey and all subsequent attempts but they have all failed.

That depends on how you define success. If you define "success" as "created life," then yes, they've failed. But if you define "success" as "help us understand under what conditions life could or could not have originated by natural processes," why then all of them have succeeded.

Anyway, we all know that if Miller and Urey, or any of their successors, had succeeded in creating life, you would right this minute be bellowing about how "see, see, this proves that you need an intelligent creator to create life!" The fact that such experiments are deliberately designed to minimize the human influence would be far beyond your understanding, just as it is with the analogous issue of genetic algorithms.

Philip said...

Amazing article; thanks for posting it.

I've been curious for some time now if there has ever been recorded observations that genetic mutation caused an increase of new genetic information in an organism. Your post about the Nature article on fruit fly mutation seems to indicate that no, no such observation has been made.

That article on the fruit fly also made me curious if there were any experiments, phenomena, obervations, etc. that a Darwinist would accept as having falsified Darwinism.

Jon Woolf said...

Hey Philip, maybe you can answer the question that Radar runs from at warp nine: how do you measure information content? How can you tell if a given mutation increases or decreases the amount of information present?

That article on the fruit fly also made me curious if there were any experiments, phenomena, obervations, etc. that a Darwinist would accept as having falsified Darwinism.

If the fossil record was not sequential; if we found that some forms of terrestrial life were genetically or anatomically unrelated to all others; if we found an organism with traits that clearly did not benefit that organism in any way, but only benefited others. Any of those, and many others, would falsify evolutionary theory.

Philip said...

*Hey Philip, maybe you can answer the question that Radar runs from at warp nine: how do you measure information content? How can you tell if a given mutation increases or decreases the amount of information present?*

This article represents better what I was trying to ask:

http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_don%27t_add_information_(Talk.Origins)

Jon Woolf said...

Philip, I still have to ask the same question: how do you measure information. How do you tell if a mutation increased or decreased the amount of information present? The article you linked doesn't answer that question.

Here, I'll make it very simple. One common type of mutation is a point mutation: a single base in a gene gets changed, so that a different amino acid is inserted into the protein that the gene codes for. Does the mutant gene contain more or less information than the old, unmutated gene did?

Philip said...

*Philip, I still have to ask the same question: how do you measure information. How do you tell if a mutation increased or decreased the amount of information present? The article you linked doesn't answer that question.*

Here you go:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199909/0480.html

Jon Woolf said...

But Spetner doesn't answer the question. He punts it.

Consider the American Wirehair Cat. Its unique fur is the result of a single mutation which happens to be an autosomal dominant. Did this mutation add or remove information from the Wirehair's genome?