Search This Blog

Friday, October 21, 2011

Evolutionists Believe in Magic - You should believe in research and evidence

The Godfather is a pseudonym used by the blogger who runs Godfather Politics.  Like many of us, he is not a one-note instrument but does turn his attention to non-political subjects just as I sometimes blog on politics.   His latest post concerning Darwinism is relevant and speaks to the major issues in that Darwinism just doesn't meet the requirements to be considered "science" at all.  It is hokum.  It is a religion.   It ignores facts and evidence and depends on stories and a united front of true believers like Musk Oxen standing around their young.  Problem is, what they are protecting is mythology.

Evolutionists Believe in Magic

Richard Dawkins, the high priest of today’s modern-day religion of evolution, has written a children’s book with the title, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. When a scientist tells you that he knows what’s really true, he is being a philosopher not a scientist. There are hundreds of examples of scientific truisms that are no longer true today. The geocentric model of the solar system and spontaneous generation are two of the big ones. Then there is the problem of the origin of everything. There is no scientific way of knowing what’s really true about how we and the stuff of the cosmos got here. Science writer Isaac Asimov can only say, “Without being able to be certain . . . (and perhaps we never will be), we can speculate as to the possible course of events in the primordial ocean.”[1] Dawkins writes in a similar way in his book The Greatest Show on Earth:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.[2]

The Magic of Reality touches on traditional scientific questions that any children’s book on science covers. Dawkins’ goal is to indoctrinate children by appealing to their inquisitive nature and attraction to stunning graphics by working with comic book artist Dave McKean to create a “graphic detective story.”

From the strident polemicism of The God Delusion, Dawkins has shifted into “wise granddad” mode. His strategy is laid bare in the list of chapters, a clear “scientific” rewrite of the contents of Genesis. The formula is simple: each chapter addresses a basic question: “Who was the first person?” or ”When and how did everything begin?” Dawkins then supplies imaginative answers provided by ancient myths from around the world — among them prominent tales from the Bible. Finally, he demolishes these myths by supplying the “real” answers provided by science.[3]

Dawkins does not tell his young readers the purpose of life or the evolutionary basis for morality. You will find his view of life in his more adult books:

“Human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. . . . From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.”[4]

It’s not that Dawkins doesn’t want people to be nice. Being nice just doesn’t make sense considering that evolution is about exploiting the weak. The next time you read about playground bullying, you’ll know who to blame.

In reality, evolution is about magic, conjuring something out of nothing. Until evolutionists demonstrate (1) the origin of matter out of nothing (VoilĂ !), (2) how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (abiogenesis), (3) the origin of information and its meaningful organization (DNA programming), and (4) a genetic explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral (ethics), evolution is little more than a belief in and practice of black magic.

Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller are stage magicians. Their act is a mix of comedy, irreverence, and lots of skill. They are also known for exposing quacks, frauds, and claims of the supernatural in the tradition of Harry Houdini and James Randi.

Their worldview is libertarian and atheistic. According to an article in Wired magazine,[5] Penn has Nevada license plates that are customized to read “ATHEIST” and “GODLESS.” “Sometimes they’ll even sign autographs with ‘There is no God.’” As one would expect, Penn believes that we got here, not by a creative act of God, but by the process of evolution. He believes in evolution. It’s his religion. By Penn’s own admission, echoing the words of Asimov and Dawkins, he states that he does not “know how the world was created.” He goes on to write in his book God, No!:

I don’t know how humans got here. There are lots of good guesses, and we keep testing those guesses trying to find where they’re wrong. Science has helped a lot, but we don’t know. And maybe we never will. I mean, we, all of us, the people living right now, will certainly never know, but it seems almost as likely that no humans will ever know. How could we?[6]

With all of his “I don’t know” and “we don’t know” statements, Penn is still a big believer in evolution and a non-believer in God. But two pages later in God, No!, he states, “And if you don’t know, you can’t believe. Believing cannot rise out of ‘I don’t know.’”[7] To further confuse his readers, Penn writes, “This book is just some thoughts from someone who doesn’t know.”[8] So how can he believe in evolution and absolutely not believe in God when he doesn’t know, and believing can’t rise out of “I don’t know”?

There is one thing that Penn does know: There is no such thing as magic. He and his stage partner do not make objects appear and disappear. Everything they do is a trick, sleight of hand, prestidigitation (“quick fingers”), legerdemain, or any other word of phrase you might want to use to explain their act. There’s also some mechanism known to them but not known to their audience that lets them fool the observer that something seemingly magical took place. Noting magical ever takes place.

Everything they do is a manipulative trick, and they will be the first to tell you the truth about their business except how all the elements of the trick are done. The operating assumption of anyone who attends a “magic” show must always be “I know I’m being fooled, even though I don’t know how.” This reminds me of a scene from the film My Cousin Vinny (1992)[9] where Bill (Ralph Macchio), is describing to his cellmate Stan the ability of his cousin Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci) to uncover the truth no matter how cleverly disguised:

Bill: At my cousin Ruthie’s wedding, the groom’s brother was that guy Alakazam. You know who I’m talking about?
Stan: The magician with the ponytail?
Bill: Right. Well, he did his act, and every time he made something disappear, Vinny jumped on him. I mean, he nailed him! It was like, “it’s in his pocket,” or “he’s palming it,” you know? Or, “there’s a mirror under the table.” I mean, he was like, he was like, “wait a second, wait a second, it’s joined in the middle, and there’s a spring around it, it pops it open when it’s inside the tube.” It was like Alakazam’s worst nightmare. Vinny was just being Vinny. He was just being the quintessential Gambini.

Penn & Teller make their living being quintessential Gambinis, and they want us to do the same when it comes to claims of the supernatural. Animals, coins, balls, cards, and whatever else, don’t appear out of thin air when a magician performs. Tricks are designed, prepped, and executed using natural methods and materials. Nothing is transformed, restored, teleported, levitated, cut in half, or stabbed. Nothing ever vanishes.

Most magicians will never tell how they perform their tricks. Their livelihoods depend on secrecy. (Of course, there are exceptions when money is involved and anonymity is part of the reveal.) It’s the illusion that enthralls an audience. “It is argued that once the secret of a trick is revealed to a person, that one can no longer fully enjoy subsequent performances of that magic, as the amazement is missing. Sometimes the secret is so simple that the audience feels let down, and feels disappointed it was taken in so easily.”

As magicians who would never claim that they can make life appear on stage from non-life, as adherents of evolution claim has been done, they must believe that matter appeared out of nothing and life came from non-life. Penn & Teller would never claim that they could make a single molecule appear out of thin air, but they must believe that the birds, the bees, the trees, and you and me came into existence and evolved from nothing into a superheated, ultimately sterile chemical soup.

Penn & Teller could stand on stage and shake a jar of these origin chemicals until the hell they don’t believe in freezes over, and the stuff inside would never come to life. Of course, there is the more fundamental problem of accounting for the stuff in the jar, but we’ll give them that much. What they so cleverly debunk using their illusionist principles, they have not applied to the evolutionary worldview that makes fantastic claims that in any skeptic’s dictionary would be defined as magical. Consider the following on “Probability and the Origin of Life” by Robert E. Kofahl:

For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth’s early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called “abiogenesis”). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life’s probability is extremely small, essentially zero.[10]

As magicians, Penn & Teller know that their tricks are designed, either by them or someone else. They also know that those who design and build the equipment for their stage magic use existing material. Those who develop tricks don’t create their tricks out of nothing, and Penn & Teller wouldn’t expect it to be any other way. In fact, if some seller of magic tricks came to them and claimed that he could teach them how to make a rabbit really appear out of thin air, they would dismiss him as a kook. But they have no problem believing that the cosmos and life as we know it did appear out of thin air with no intelligence behind the process.

Penn & Teller’s well scripted magic acts do not happen by chance. A great deal of planning and design go into every performance. And yet they believe in a theory that debunks design, embraces the non-entity chance that can’t do anything because chance doesn’t exist,[11] and goes against the operating premise that life does not come from non-life.

Even so, Dawkins, Penn & Teller, and Asimov, contrary to everything they believe about how the world works, believe that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing and that life evolved from non-life. In Asimov’s book The Wellsprings of Life, he spends nearly 200 pages describing how scientists believe life evolved. But when he gets to the origin of life, how it all started, the scientific method is discarded and magic replaces it:

Under the drive of energy, the primordial ocean would have slowly filled with more and more complex compounds: amino acids, sugars, porphyrins, nucleotides. These would be built up further so that amino acids might combine into proteins, and nucleotides into nucleic acids.
This could continue at random for perhaps a billion years or more, until a time came when a double-stranded nucleic acid molecule was put together which was complex enough to have the capacity of consummating replication. . . . To have this happen on the basis of random chance seems to be asking a lot, but then a billion hears is a long time.
And if this indeed happened (and surely something like it must have), then at least once in the history of our planet, there did, after all, take place a case of spontaneous generation.[12]

Magic! There is no other word for it. When pushed to explain how it all started, the atheist scientist can’t apply the well-tested scientific method. Penn & Teller can’t make objects appear out of thin air, but they believe with all their heart that nothing pulled the cosmos out of nothing. Now I would like to see that magic act.

  1. Isaac Asimov, The Wellsprings of Life (New York: Signet Science Library, 1960), 204. []
  2. Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: The Free Press, 2009), 419. []
  3. Raven Clabough, “Richard Dawkins’ New Children’s Book Encourages Atheism, Evolution,” The New American (September 20, 2011). []
  4. Richard Dawkins, “Atheists for Jesus” (April 10, 2006). []
  5. Geoffrey Gagnon, “Faces of the New Atheism: The Illusionists,” Wired (November 2006). []
  6. Penn Jillette, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and other Magical Tales (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 2011), xvi. []
  7. Jillette, God, No!, xviii. []
  8. Jillette, God, No!, xix. []
  9. It’s a shame that My Cousin Vinny has so much foul language in it. It’s a clever movie. If you decide to watch it, make sure it’s on a channel that edits language. []
  10. Robert E. Kofahl, “Probability and the Origin of Life.” []
  11. R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994). []
  12. Asimov, The Wellsprings of Life, 204–205. []

Read more: Evolutionists Believe in Magic | Godfather Politics


For critical thinkers, ignore Darwinist propaganda and investigate these statements.
There is no way to make life from non-life.

There is no explanation for all matter and time and existence to have begun naturally.

There is no standard geological column, not even close.

There is no progression of fossils from simple to complex.   Even vertebrates have been found in Cambrian layers and so-called extinct ancestors have a bad habit of turning up alive in the 21st Century.

There is no reliable dating method that gives consistent dates farther out than a few thousand years.

There is evidence that mankind must have begun with a bottleneck at the time of the Noahic flood.

There is evidence that most cultures recall a flood, the primary progenitors Ham, Shem and Japheth and recall a Creator.  

There is a LOT of evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed.

There is a LOT of evidence that Darwinists have faked evidence and deliberately misled the public and those they teach with information they know is not true.

There are too many anomalies in the sedimentary layers to consider them as anything but the result of catastrophic event(s).

There is no natural source for information.

There remains an unbroken Law of Biogenesis despite Darwinist hopes.

There remain the unbroken Laws of Thermodynamics despite Darwinist hoped.

That ought to be enough to cut your teeth.   Ignore Darwinist propagandists and study for yourselves!


Anonymous said...

So your response to Jon's long list of questions YEC can't answer is to create a list of creationist lies? Like this one, for example, "There is a LOT of evidence that man and dinosaur co-existed". What, just saying that such "evidence" exists, wasn't a big enough lie? You had to make it even lie-ier by saying "a LOT". For Jesus!! Anyway, even you can only come up with some undocumented "footprints" and those weird clay figures featuring various mythical creatures your "evidence" when challenged. Sure doesn't seem like "a lot" to me. And that's just one of your lies.

Oh and your title is hilarious. You know, because they have a name for people that work from "research and evidence", they're called scientists, and they don't exactly see eye to eye with you on this topic. God does magic (i.e. poofing the entire universe into existence), scientists do science (research and evidence). Surprised you didn't know that.


Jon Woolf said...

What's really funny is that Radar and his fellows accept without question:

* talking snakes
* plants that burn without being burned up
* visions of the future, both in dreams and awake
* many-headed flying monsters
* sticks turning into snakes
* food falling out of the sky
* water turning to blood
* men walking on liquid water
* men turning water into wine
* men creating fish and bread out of nothing

but evolution is verboten, because it's magic!

Anonymous said...

"It’s not that Dawkins doesn’t want people to be nice. Being nice just doesn’t make sense considering that evolution is about exploiting the weak. The next time you read about playground bullying, you’ll know who to blame."

Priceless. Whoever wrote this obviously doesn't know anything about evolution, but of course Radar swallows this baloney hook, line and sinker.

Anonymous said...

That list of propaganda claims at the end of your post (the part you didn't cutnpaste) has all been refuted. Are you no longer interested in defending any of it? Now you just want to repeat it ad nauseam and ignore any counterarguments?

Very well. Your concession is accepted.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

So Radar, while you're trumpeting research and evidence, could you tell us how YEC absolutely, positively CAN'T offer a consistent interpretation of the evidence of radiometric/ice core/varve/tree ring data? It can take little potshots at outliers in mainstream science, but the actual data? YEC can't explain it.

Your continued evasions when asked for this speak volumes. YEC doesn't have the goods on a crucial aspect of its worldview. It's just not there.

Maybe that's why you're stuck on repetition instead of being able to face counter-arguments in any honest fashion.

I believe in chess the term would be "stale-mate", in that you're thoroughly boxed in, but you're too stubborn to admit it.

AmericanVet said...

HLH I am getting tired of this he said-she said garbage. One more time...

I have posted the proof that radiometric dating is not accurate beyond a few thousand years and why that is. Not only did I post articles about it, I posted a couple of nice Ian Juby You Tubes that cover the concept nicely.

Second, I have shown that varves can be compiled in minutes, thus dismissing them as indicators of years. Darwinists are always using methods that cannot be calibrated accurately and using them to claim long ages.

Third, both tree rings and ice cores have no calibration methods beyond perhaps three thousand years, so dating using them is guesswork.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Thanks for the umpteenth evasion of the question, Radar.

Read the question carefully.

YEC can't answer it.

Anonymous said...

I am getting tired of this he said-she said garbage

Radar, so what exactly is the "he-said, she-said"?

What you've got is "HLH asked, Radar tries evasions and has no answer".

It's understandable that you're tired of it, but that's what you get for having a position you can't defend with facts and evidence-based reasoning.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Second, I have shown that varves can be compiled in minutes, thus dismissing them as indicators of years"

Didn't Jon Woolf clearly and easily take this claim apart already? I don't think you responded to that.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Third, both tree rings and ice cores have no calibration methods beyond perhaps three thousand years, so dating using them is guesswork."

So let me get this straight. We can calibrate tree rings and ice cores going back about three thousand years, thus giving us a reasonable certainty that their data corresponds, for example, one layer to one year, give or take a quite narrow margin of error.

This alone blows the standard YEC line that trees form multiple rings in one year and your stupendously unfounded claim that multiple ice core layers (the kind of layers actually used for dating purposes) are formed in a single storm completely out of the water.

If you can ascertain through calibration that ice core layers indicate past annual events going back about 3,000 years, what reasonable explanation do you then have for, say, the remaining 797,000 or so ice core layers found beneath the aforementioned 3,000? Is it not reasonable to assume - barring any evidence indicating a fundamental shift in natural laws around this time, which apparently doesn't exist - that these represent approx. 797,000 years preceding the calibrated 3,000 years?

Or that, AT THE VERY VERY LEAST, that they represent a LOT more than the 3,000 years your narrow interpretation of a religious text restricts you to?

This is why the question regarding a consistent YEC interpretation of these data is so supremely important, and the complete and utter lack of an answer from the YECs so devastating.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Can YECs interpret the data in a way that is consistent with all the other data AND with the YEC worldview?

None has ever been presented.

Can mainstream science interpret the data in a way that is consistent with all the other data and with a long Earth?

Yep, been there, done that.

There's not even any competition here. YEC is toast on its most central issue.

AmericanVet said...

You commenters still believe in magic. You can blithely dismiss the evidence I posted by claiming it doesn't answer your questions within this comment thread, but that is not going to move me since I know better. The ignorance of ice layer formation demonstrated by anonymous makes him a typical brainwashed Darwinist.

You guys cannot explain existence, time, life or information and you think you can get victory by claiming that ice cores prove you right? Trouble is that I did post a long post about ice cores that proved ME right. Another proved that varves can form in minutes and are not the ancient lake bed layers previously thought. As to tree rings, we know that sometimes trees skip a year or have more than one ring a year so again, you cannot depend on tree rings.

By the way, where did all the glaciation come from if there was not a Noahic flood? Did you know when glaciers "calve" they are growing, not shrinking? Did you know that normal meteorological conditions do not explain the massive amounts of ice at both poles? They should not be there. The current climate allows them to remain largely the same but cannot begin to explain why they are there.

Every claim you have made in this comments thread has been denied by a previous post. You are wasting your time just saying "nyuh-uh." I know better and I hardly think readers are going to be impressed.

AmericanVet said...

As to evasion, when you commenters challenge me with a question that I have made numerous posts on, I am not going to go paste the post into the comments thread. I know the troll game already:

Ask questions that have been answered elsewhere and do it over and over again.

Ask questions unrelated to the post topic.

Claim that another commenter has answered (for instance, Jon's lame defense of varves).

Post some science-y sounding stuff like the supposed transition of fish fins to limbs. One of you tried to do it and gave a few examples. The trouble is that there is no mechanism that will make systems build within organisms like that. Darwinism claims it makes little step-by-step improvements to organisms. But in fact the difference between a fin and a limb involves millions upon millions of changes times thousands if not millions of cells and all of this involving millions upon millions of mutations all of which are forward mutations that are helpful not harmful.

Why this cannot happen is explained by real science. Michael Behe wrote on the "Limits of Evolution" showing that at most two mutations at once can be passed on. Recent studies of DNA have shown us that much of the DNA is assigned to repair of the DNA string to eliminate any mutations. No complex system can jump through that hoop. I will continue...

AmericanVet said...

YEC says that organisms were designed with large amounts of genetic information so that selective pressures would have pre-installed choices in order that the kind might survive. Thus we now can have the same kind of fish, one living in saltwater and one in freshwater. We even have fish that spawn in freshwater but then live in saltwater! That is one of many examples of selection from genetic material already within the gene pool of the organism.

There is no problem, then, with devolution in which organisms lose some of that information because of scattering and separation of populations, such as ring speciation. There are some kinds of organisms that can still breed with similar kinds located close to them but not with the kinds located far away in a very different climate.

Baraminologists have succeeded in mating a few organisms Darwinists thought were separate kinds. We have seen Wholphins and Ligers and so on produced. This does not surprise a real scientist who believes God created basic kinds and gave them large amounts of genetic materials so they could survive huge swings in climate and terrain and other stressors and continue on. Furthermore God made more than one kind of organism that could fit within the general environment. The normal animals found in the ecosystem of Indonesia are far different from those in Brazil and far different from those in the Eastern USA and yet all three areas have the organisms that live in the different areas from the sky to below the water and all places in between. Grass eaters and seed eaters and carnivore/omnivores and carrion eaters. Tree top and tree trunk and field dwellers and ground surface dwellers and dwellers below ground and those both on and below the water and also below the bottom of the water. Microorganisms living in and on all of them. It is designed that way.

Honestly I really cannot understand any of you who have spent a few years studying life and still believe in Darwinism. Remarkably preposterous!

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Radar, it doesn't matter how many screens you fill with endless evasions and distractions ("you can't explain existence!" etc.), you're not answering the question.

Where is the consistent, coherent interpretation of radiometric/ice core/varve/tree ring data that lines up with a 6,000-year timeline?

You respond politician-style by ignoring the question and responding to other questions that you deem more convenient, and you claim that it has already been answered on your blog, but fail to provide a single link - which of course you can't provide, because any attentive reader of your blog already knows that you've never answered this question...

... and that YEC has no answer to it.

Read the question carefully.

If you can't answer it, fine.

But don't commit a sin by pretending that you have answered it when you haven't.

Jon Woolf said...

Post some science-y sounding stuff like the supposed transition of fish fins to limbs. One of you tried to do it and gave a few examples. The trouble is that there is no mechanism that will make systems build within organisms like that.

A poor argument, Radar. Again I urge you to learn something about what geneticists and embryologists have actually found, rather than depending on creationists for all your information. In fact, the transformation of a crossopterygian fin to a primitive tetrapod leg depends primarily on mutations in regulatory genes, changing the ways in which other existing genes were expressed.

Michael Behe wrote on the "Limits of Evolution" showing that at most two mutations at once can be passed on.

This claim makes no sense.

Baraminologists have succeeded in mating a few organisms Darwinists thought were separate kinds.

Evolutionary biologists don't use the term "kind." They use "species". 99+% of species are closed, isolated gene pools. Cases of cross-species hybridization are rare; cases of cross-genus hybridization are almost unheard of. Note that this sort of fuzziness is exactly what we should expect if evolutionary theory is correct: most species are fully distinct populations, while a very few are not.