Search This Blog

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Does the evidence falsify Darwinism?

Why do Darwinists always fail to accept the challenge to present actual evidence in court for their hypothesis?   Because they do not have it.   In fact, I can keep God basically on the sidelines and allow a completely evidence-based discussion concerning Darwinism tear it limb from limb:

 

Does New Scientific Evidence About the Origin of Life Put an End to Darwinian Evolution?

How did life begin? Where did the first cell come from? Questions that have plagued scientists for centuries remain unanswered today, but recent scientific discoveries are leading modern scientists to explore the theory of intelligent design as a better explanation for the complexity of life and the universe.

In four television episodes of the John Ankerberg Show broadcast across the US and over 200 nations worldwide, Dr. John Ankerberg interviewed Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, author of the groundbreaking book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. The series will begin broadcasting on April 3 at 5:30pm EDT on the Daystar Network and on April 10 at 9:30pm EDT on the INSP Network.
In the interviews Dr. Meyer explains how even Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, admitted he did not know how the first cell came into being, or how life came to be.

Scientists in Darwin's day thought the cell was a simple glob of plasm, but today we have discovered that the cell is an almost unimaginably complex system of molecular machines and rich in digital code.
Where did this high-tech in low life come from? Ankerberg and Meyer explore the mystery surrounding this question, which Meyer calls the DNA enigma. Click on the links below to watch full episodes of the show online!
  • Week 1: Every person's body consists of over a trillion cells. Almost every one of these cells includes a DNA molecule. What is DNA? Why is it so special? What does it do? Where did the digital code embedded in DNA originate? Why does the specified information in DNA point to a designing intelligence?
  • Week 2: As scientific technology has progressed, scientists have realized the cell is more and more complex. According to Microsoft's Bill Gates, the DNA within each cell is far more complex than any computer software ever created. Where did the coded information within DNA come from? What naturalistic theories have been proposed? What is the possibility of the precise genetic information in DNA evolving by chance?
  • Week 3: In addition to chance, scientists have offered other answers to the origin of the precise genetic information found in DNA. Why is it that natural selection, self-organizing natural laws, or some combination of these with chance cannot explain where the information originated? We'll also see why DNA exhibits signs of a designing intelligence.
  • Week 4: What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID)? Is ID true science or just religion masquerading as science? We'll also answer the objections to ID such as, "Is ID just an argument from ignorance?" ("We don't know what the naturalistic causes are right now for the origin of life.") We'll also see why ID is based on scientific reasoning but may have larger religious implications.
PS - it appears you have to register on the site to see the first video.   If you read my blog on IE, you should be able to see weeks 2-4 without registration.  If you want to see what Stephen C. Meyer videos are available online...
    ~~~~~~~

    I can bolster the ID findings with scripture that helps make the case for a Creator God.  But notice that we can keep God out of the discussion and allow forensics to pinpoint the absolute requirement for a Creator?

      23 comments:

      AmericanVet said...

      It appears that line one and link four are the same? Not sure but on the actual Ankerberg website it works correctly...

      radar said...

      Yep. One has to register to see the older versions. I can get to weeks three and four without registration but one and two will either play week four or ask you to register. It is free, but it is a hassle to an extent. I may be able to find an embed code for them later on...

      Anonymous said...

      "Why do Darwinists always fail to accept the challenge to present actual evidence in court for their hypothesis?"

      They did. And they won the case.

      Cue the conspiracy theories all you want, but don't give us this jive about "Darwinists" not accepting the challenge.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "But notice that we can keep God out of the discussion and allow forensics to pinpoint the absolute requirement for a Creator?"

      No. Without special pleading for the Bible being a science textbook just because it says so, your position is toast, end of story.

      The article you've presented doesn't present evidence while keeping the question of God's existence aside at all. The cell being complex is no evidence for creation.

      To answer the question in the title of your blog post ("Does the evidence falsify Darwinism?"):

      Not even a little bit.

      Still no evidence for creation, huh. Can't say that I'm surprised, but surely you must feel a little disconcerted at this stage.

      Anonymous said...

      Huh? I always thought American Vet and Radar were one and the same person.

      Or is this an extreme case of split personality?

      radar said...

      I was on one computer, made a comment and then went downstairs to the other computer where I was logged in to the other account. I have multiple blogs including a team blog and I oversee a couple more. Radar or AmericanVet are same person, yep.

      radar said...

      No, Darwinists didn't win a court case based on evidence. They convinced a hapless judge that the argument was about religion and they also got that argument wrong but the judge was in their pocket anyway.

      You want a trial on evidence? Go challenge Joseph M. The challenge only allows evidence and no religion of either the atheist or Deist kind.

      Did any of you watch one of the videos or are you just parroting pre-existing arguments? Because not one of you has spoken to the evidence presented.

      Anonymous said...

      " Radar or AmericanVet are same person, yep."

      So you asked yourself a question about your own article and then continued to answer yourself?

      Uhmm...okay. Carry on.

      Jon Woolf said...

      "They convinced a hapless judge that the argument was about religion"

      It was.

      "and they also got that argument wrong but the judge was in their pocket anyway."

      Then I'm sure you're ready with a stack of actionable errors of fact and/or law that Judge Jones made. It's really not that hard. The trial transcript and Judge Jones's ruling are both available online, and as unclassified government product they are public domain, quotable at length without permission.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "Did any of you watch one of the videos or are you just parroting pre-existing arguments? Because not one of you has spoken to the evidence presented."

      Okay, I just wasted half an hour watching "Intelligent Design 4", the fourth of these video links. No evidence was presented. I'm not kidding. None. Just a rehash of the argument from incredulity. "The cell is complex. Therefore it is designed." Logic fail. (For a good example, go about 5 minutes into the video.)

      Also some back and forth of arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam on this blog. But no evidence. If you do think there was any evidence presented during this half hour, please tell us what you think it is. Be specific.

      Oh, and if there's any evidence in the other 3 links, can you tell us what it is? I don't think you're going to get too many people to go to the trouble of registering for another website and watching multiple half-hour episodes. I certainly wouldn't after having watched one of them and finding it to be a dud.

      Anonymous said...

      I suspect there are also other shenanigans going on in the video. For example, a quote attributed to Dawkins can not be found in google, which makes me wonder if certain liberties were taken here.

      Also some sly and deceptive tactics, like pretending that ID uses the same scientific methods as Darwin did with his theory of evolution - yet somehow skips over the fact that it fails to use the scientific method itself; it does not (and apparently can not) yield a falsifiable, verifiable statement that can be tested.

      Meyers is a telegenic presenter, but sadly not as honest as his demeanor suggests.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      And this quote from Meyers:

      "You don't say whether a theory is true or not because you like or don't like its implications. It would be totally wrong for me to say that Darwinism is true because many scientists think it leads to atheism. You have to evaluate a theory based on the evidence, and whether the evidence is sufficient to support the claim."

      Words to keep in mind - this is why your "worldview" rants invariably fall flat.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "No, Darwinists didn't win a court case based on evidence."

      They presented evidence. They won. Weird.

      Let's look at the conspiracy theory then:

      "They convinced a hapless judge that the argument was about religion and they also got that argument wrong but the judge was in their pocket anyway."

      The judge (Bush-appointed, incidentally) was "hapless" and "in their pocket". Evidence please. Did you read the transcripts or are you just parroting pre-existing arguments? Because you haven't spoken to the evidence presented.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "You want a trial on evidence? Go challenge Joseph M."

      I love it when you bring up Joey M, always a good opportunity to direct readers to http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html . Apparently you still don't get what a poor ambassador for your cause he is, especially the way he behaved on your blog. Why would any sane person engage in debate with this shell of a mind after reading that? Not least, he refused to even explain the reasoning behind his own challenge.

      "The challenge only allows evidence and no religion of either the atheist or Deist kind."

      Already did that in Dover.

      Besides, having seen what sore losers you guys are, why would it be any different if somebody beat Mastropaolo in court? You'd just come up with some lame allegations about how that judge wasn't adequate or how he was corrupt or something.

      So why should anyone waste the time to indulge your guys' pleading for a re-do?

      radar said...

      Dover was not about evidence. Meyer is not arguing from incredulity but rather logic based upon evidence. The reason Darwinists deny the evidence is because their worldview prohibits it. You guys are the religious zealots who are anti-science. Meyer is simply applying the same scientific method Bacon and Newton used. His arguments really point out the complete lack of logic and evidence attendant with Darwinism.

      If someone has watched and considered at least two of the videos and then read your comments, they would figure that you guys were parody comics trying to get a laugh.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "If someone has watched and considered at least two of the videos and then read your comments, they would figure that you guys were parody comics trying to get a laugh."

      Presumably you've "watched and considered at least two of the videos", including Intelligent Design 4. Can you really not tell us what actual evidence it contains? Something that is not a logical fallacy like an argument from incredulity, but actual evidence?

      Still nothing?

      Okay then.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      Nothing but vague, hollow claims.

      "Dover was not about evidence."

      The "Darwinists" provided evidence. The judge considered it and made his judgement. Those are simple facts. If you want to refute them, you'll have to bring more to the table than a blanket assertion. Was the judge corrupt? Did people lie to him? Be specific.

      And why should anyone believe that if somebody went through the hassle of putting 10K at the mercy of an oddball like Joey Mastropaolo and invested a few months of time and travel etc. to present evidence in court and then won, that you guys wouldn't simply make the same vague sore-loser comments? "Oh that judge was wrong as well. Oh he was in their pocket. Yeah, that musta been it."

      Your response on Dover is very telling, and you can keep whining about wanting a re-do with a childish freak like Mastropaolo (if you think that's an unfair description, seriously, read his comments on that post linked above), but nobody's interested.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "Meyer is not arguing from incredulity but rather logic based upon evidence."

      He brings no positive evidence to the table, which is why his argument, as he explains, rests on the principle of competing hypotheses. But he is not being thorough in his application of it. When it comes to the existence of complexity and information in living organisms, we know that evolution by natural selection can also result in an increase in complexity and information, so Meyer would be wrong to exclude this hypothesis from the set of options. The question then becomes whether reproduction and variation themselves at no matter how basic a level could occur naturally, and evidence indicate that this may indeed be possible.

      Once Meyer has more than one hypothesis, he has to apply falsifiable testable statements, but he doesn't go there. In fact, by restricting his application of scientific principles to that of competing hypotheses, he is practically ensuring that he is playing "God of the gaps".

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "The reason Darwinists deny the evidence is because their worldview prohibits it."

      People who accept the theory of evolution come from all kinds of different faiths and religions, so this statement obviously can't be true. A Jew and a Christian and a Buddhist and an atheist can't all have their worldview prohibit accepting the theory of evolution. On the other hand, you can take the converse statement ("The reason creationists deny the evidence is because their worldview prohibits it.") and be closer to the truth, since their worldview depends on a certain outcome, and so it prohibits creationists from being open-minded about the evidence indicating alternative outcomes.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "You guys are the religious zealots who are anti-science."

      You wish. This is easily disproven by the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by testable, falsifiable statements, while YEC and ID can't present any of these; ID for the simple reason that its claims can not be tested (hence making it more of a God of the gaps argument) and YEC because testable, falsifiable statements can be generated, but they universally falsify YEC.

      "Meyer is simply applying the same scientific method Bacon and Newton used."

      No, he is not. He applied competing hypotheses, but he does not thoroughly apply the main part of the scientific method, i.e. make testable claim, test it, fine-tune it.

      Anonymous whatsit said...

      "His arguments really point out the complete lack of logic and evidence attendant with Darwinism."

      Maybe he did that in some of the other videos, the ones that require registering on the website, but he didn't in ID 4.

      However, even if there were no evidence at all for the theory of evolution, that still wouldn't amount to evidence for creationism.

      Jon Woolf said...

      "today we have discovered that the cell is an almost unimaginably complex system of molecular machines and rich in digital code."

      Which one?

      "The cell," indeed. [snort] What kind of cell are you talking about? Human erythrocytes, which don't have nuclear DNA? Bird erythrocytes, which do? Metaphyte structural cells, with their rigid cell walls? Algal cells? Fungal cells? Bacterial cells? Archaean cells? Rickettsial cells, so simple that they can't live independently and depend on having a living host to exist in?

      The other day I saw a link to a study done the way science is supposed to be done: no grand sweeping conclusions from thin and stringy evidence, but a team of researchers who found something weird, wrote it up and said "this deserves to be looked into further":

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018011

      A decent jargon-to-English translation is here:

      http://www.economist.com/node/18437900

      I've long thought there were missing elements in our concept of abiogenesis. If (and it's a big if) there's a fourth domain of life, simpler than any of the three known ones, then it may provide those missing pieces. Or at least some of them.

      As for Dover, if you're so sure the judge was stupid, biased, or both, then why can't you produce any evidence of that?

      Anonymous said...

      And now for something funny:

      Answers In Genesis was kicked out of two homeschool conferences ('after much deliberation and prayer') for being too intolerant and obnoxious:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/22/kicked-out-homeschool-conferences

      Priceless!