Search This Blog

Monday, May 07, 2012

Evolution's Lame Excuses - The Argument From Ignorance

Suppose you fail to turn in your homework in math class and you get an "F" for the day?   Could you go to the teacher and claim she is being unfair because you might very well know the homework answers but she just cannot see them in your head.   You claim that when she gave you an "F" it was an Argument From Ignorance!

The AFI aka argument from ignorance is one of the many lame excuses Darwinists use when they are faced with evidence that falsifies or at least badly damages their pet hypothesis.   When biologists point out features in organisms that are irreducibly complex and therefore must be designed, along will come a Darwinist with the good old AFI    I am simply preparing you for what is likely going to be said when this author points out two creatures that surely had to have been designed, creatures that are both fantastic, unique and complex.   Will Darwinism be able to point out a continuum of transitional fossils for these creatures?  No.   Will they ever do that with any creatures at all?   Not without being deceptive (eg.  The Horse Chart).


The Creativity of the Creator Declares His Glory

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Much of mankind loves to classify and sort things. We like to sort socks by color and shirts by kind. We categorize books topically. We arrange files alphabetically. We organize tools by their function. We take pictures of people by their size (“tallest in the back, shortest up front”) and then arrange them chronologically in “properly” labeled albums. We like things certain ways; we want things “just so”; and when things do not fall in line with our ideas and expectations, we wonder what happened.

Sometimes we just need to “sit back, relax, and enjoy the view” of God’s handiwork. The Lord says, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). Sometimes we need to press the pause button and take a page out of God’s Creation revelation (Romans 1:20). Recognize that not everything fits neatly in a systematic filing system, and be thankful that God filled the Earth with His glorious, “manifold…works” (Psalm 104:24; Isaiah 6:3)—that He created all manner of creatures, some of which do not fit neatly in a sorting system, but certainly declare their Maker’s majesty.

Take the duck-billed platypus, for example. It is unlike any other animal on Earth. Scientists classify the platypus as a mammal, but it hardly fits neatly into this category. It is about the size of a house cat with fur thicker than a polar bear’s. It can store food in its mouth like a chipmunk. It has a beaver-like tail and webbed feet like an otter. It has spurs like a rooster, lays eggs like a turtle, and produces venom like a snake. Last, but not least, it has a clumsy-looking, duck-like bill with a complex electro-receptor system in it that allows the platypus to sense weak electric impulses in the muscles of its prey (Scheich, et al., 1986, 319:401-402). The platypus’ modern scientific name (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) means “duck-like, bird snout,” yet we call it a mammal. Truly, if there was ever an animal to call “unique,” it would be the platypus.

Consider also the seahorse. It is one of the most curious-looking animals on the planet. Though it has a head like a horse, eyes like a lizard, a tail like an opossum, and can swim like a submarine, the seahorse is considered a fish. Scientists refer to the seahorse as Hippocampus, a name derived from two Greek words: hippo, meaning “horse,” and campus, meaning “sea creature.”

Most fish swim horizontally by moving their bodies back and forth, from side to side. Seahorses, on the other hand, live in an upright position and swim vertically—like a submarine that can go up and down. The seahorse can properly maintain its balance as it goes up and down in the water because of the gas within its swim bladder (“Sea horse,” 1997, 10:579). Like a well-designed submarine that manipulates gas in order to submerge and resurface, the seahorse can alternate the amount of gas in its bladder to move up and down in the water (Juhasz, 1994). The life of the seahorse is dependent on a perfectly designed bladder. With a damaged bladder (or without a bladder altogether) a seahorse would sink to the ocean floor and die. How do evolutionists logically explain the evolution of this swim bladder if the seahorse has always needed it to survive? If it has always needed it, then it must have always had it, else there would be no seahorse.

Perhaps the most puzzling feature of the seahorse, which does not neatly file away in a normal animal fact folder, is that seahorses are the only known animals in which males actually become pregnant, carry young, and give birth. The male seahorse is designed with a special kangaroo-like pouch near its stomach. At just the right time during the courtship, the female seahorse deposits hundreds of eggs into the pouch of the male. The male fertilizes the eggs, and for the next few weeks carries the unborn seahorses, before squirting the fully formed babies out of the pouch (Danielson, 2002). If nothing like this process is known in the animal kingdom, why would anyone think that evolution can logically explain it? How do undirected time and chance stumble across a different and better way for a particular kind of fish to have babies? Did the first male seahorse to give birth simply have an irritable mate who refused to have babies unless he carried and birthed them? Suffice it to say, seahorses are as baffling to the theory of evolution as are duck-billed platypuses. These unusual animals cry out for a creative Creator, Who cannot be contained in the naturalistic box of evolution. As the patriarch Job asked, “Who…does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing?... Ask the beasts, and they will teach you…and the fish of the sea will explain to you” (Job 12:9-10,7-8).

CONCLUSION

God’s creation is full of variety and complexity. The natural world testifies to a masterful Maker, a creative Creator. He made an animal with the bill of a duck and the tail of a beaver. He gave a sea creature the head of a horse and the tail of an opossum. He made furry animals (i.e., bats) that fly on membranous wings, while making flightless birds (i.e., penguins) that live on land and “fly” through frigid waters. He made the prickly porcupine, the puffer fish, and a sloth so slow that it makes the tortoise look like a cheetah. As much as God’s creation testifies to His omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign nature (Job 38-41; Romans 1:20), I respectfully suggest that our great God seems to have had a lot of fun at the foundation of the world. At the very least, His amazing creativity has provided man a lot of laughs and entertainment since the beginning of time.
Oh come, let us sing to the Lord! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving; let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
For the Lord is the great God, and the great King above all gods.
In His hand are the deep places of the earth; the heights of the hills are His also.
The sea is His, for He made it; and His hands formed the dry land.
Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker (Psalm 95:1-6).

O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all.
The earth is full of Your possessions….
I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord (Psalm 104:24,33-34).

REFERENCES

Danielson, Stentor (2002), “Seahorse Fathers Take Reins in Childbirth,” National Geographic News, June 14, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/90683716.html.
Juhasz, David (1994), “The Amazing Seahorse,” Answers in Genesis, June 1, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v16/n3/seahorse.
Scheich, Henning, et al. (1986), “Electroreception and Electrolocation in Platypus,” Nature, 319:401-402, January 30.
“Sea horse” (1997), The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica).




Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The greatest ignorance of all is to be ignorant about the meaning of life and the Creator of all.   God is loving enough to make some unusual and spectacular creatures who point the logical mind towards a Designer with an imagination and a sense of humor.   Anyone who is familiar with the animal kingdom knows that there are some beautifully designed "outfits" worn by some animals, with bright colors and designs that do not seem to have anything at all to do with survivability but simply provide a more enjoyable and colorful world.   There is no good explanation for the development of striped or spotted coats, for instance, but rather the genetic material to allow for such variations is already contained in the genome.   

Education is the answer to ignorance.   If you have bought the Darwinist story, it is not too late to discover the truth.   Only a Supernatural God could have made the Universe, life and information and only a Loving Creator would make sure we had a message from Him to help guide us.   The Bible is that message.

The Bible says God created.    Darwinists say *poof* and inumerable miracle happened.   Darwinists depend upon miracles to the nth power to provide the accidental events they think managed to build everything around us.  So what will it be?  Did a Logical Mind make everything and arrange for it to work together in a symphony of laws and forces balanced harmoniously to allow for life on Earth for mankind?   Or has it been a continual series of remarkable uncaused and inexplicable accidents?  Which one actually sounds likely and which one sounds ridiculous?


 

11 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Suppose you fail to turn in your homework in math class and you get an "F" for the day? Could you go to the teacher and claim she is being unfair because you might very well know the homework answers but she just cannot see them in your head. You claim that when she gave you an "F" it was an Argument From Ignorance!"

One of the more ignorant descriptions of the AFI that I've seen. Maybe this will enlighten you, though given your track record learning-wise, I kinda doubt it:

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

From Wikipedia

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There is no good explanation for the development of striped or spotted coats"

Say what? You've never heard of camouflage? Seriously?

"Education is the answer to ignorance"

Well then get yourself to a school, quick.

Jon Woolf said...

I am simply preparing you for what is likely going to be said when this author points out two creatures that surely had to have been designed, creatures that are both fantastic, unique and complex. Will Darwinism be able to point out a continuum of transitional fossils for these creatures?

Yes. In point of fact, the platypus and its relatives the spiny anteaters (oh, you didn't know that the platypus has living relatives?) are examples of intermediate forms -- that is, forms which are physiologically intermediate between ancestral protomammals and fully developed eutherian mammals. Monotremes lay eggs -- as do the oldest fossil mammals. Monotremes resemble synapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") in many aspects of their anatomy. The three living types of mammal - monotreme, marsupial, and placental - form a spectrum of reproductive methods, and it doesn't take much imagination at all to see how the oviparous monotreme could evolve into the ovoviviparous marsupial, and thence into the viviparous placental.

Incidentally, your source's claim that the platypus "produces venom like a snake" is wrong. Only platypus males produce the venom, and they secrete it through their hind-leg spurs, not through fangs in the mouth. Platypus venom is chemically different from snake venom, and has different effects: where all snake venom is directed toward sickening and killing the target, platypus venom is intended simply to injure, causing wounds that bleed heavily and are extremely painful, but are not life-threatening unless the victim loses too much blood. Platypus venom is also strictly defensive, while snake venom is primarily for killing prey with a secondary defensive function.

Jon Woolf said...

As for seahorses, your article's claims about them are as ridiculous as anything else that creationists come up with in their desperate attempts to kick evolutionary theory in the shins. Point one, all ray-finned fish (which is almost all living fish) have a swim bladder. Seahorses are highly derived pipefish, so of course they inherited their swim bladders from that ancestral pipefish. Point two, detailed analyses of seahorse ecology indicate that there are fitness advantages to the 'male carries the kids' lifestyle, so it's entirely possible for it to have evolved.

radar said...

Arguments from ignorance gets yet another meaning...when Darwinists try to actually explain their fact-free illusory hypothesis. When they do so with such an assertive tone it is that much more humorous. Thanks guys!

radar said...

By the way, my definition of AFI was meant to be ironic since the Darwinist arguments from ignorance are so completely devoid of reasoning. Look above to see Jon claiming intermediate forms that are not and pontificate about the power of evolution without any examples thereof. Hey, Jon, it is not your fault that evolution has never been observed. I cannot happen. It has not happen. It will not happen.

Anonymous said...

And yet, Radar, you are still here with your little blog; repeating the same old arguments year after year and STILL creationism has gotten nowhere.

It stings, doesn't it?

radar said...

Actually, Creation Science is getting somewhere and fast! Advances in science have led naturalism to dead ends with big brick walls that cannot be negotiated. No source for the Universe. No source for information. No source for life. Evolution has got a big fat zero in the bank account.

Meanwhile more excavations in the Holy Lands have yielded more support for the Bible as not only historically correct but has confirmed older dates so the prophecies were not postdated at all but were actually written before the events. Such support of the Bible helps Creation and hurts Darwinism.

Advances in science have shown that the basic cell is irreducibly complex. An entire new field of study known as Intelligent Design is doing real science in terms of testing and applying logic to what has been learned. While they are not Christians but rather a mix of various faiths, non-believers and agnostics such as Berlinski they have made a scientific case for a supernatural Designer without designating an identity.

Also, new scientific fields have by their very existence acknowledged the superiority of the Creator to man. Biomimetics and Biomimicry are man's attempt to copy God's designs and use them ourselves. How do you suppose drones and velcro and other such things were devised? By learning from organisms designed by God!

Creationist organizations are growing in both number and membership. Darwinism is on the way out. Nope, no stings here. How about you?

Anonymous said...

"Nope, no stings here. How about you?"

As I've said before: even with an almost 2000-year monopoly and a Scopes Trial, creationism hasn't been able to come out on top. Much kicking and screaming, not a shred of scientific evidence.

That doesn't sting, that amuses. ;)

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Arguments from ignorance gets yet another meaning"

Why, did you think yours was one of those meanings? I thought yours was intended to be ironic.

"By the way, my definition of AFI was meant to be ironic"

Ironic would have been fine, but it seems you're mistaking the merely nonsensical for ironic.

"since the Darwinist arguments from ignorance are so completely devoid of reasoning."

You probably meant "Darwinist complaints about creationist arguments from ignorance", and no, those complaints are not devoid of reasoning, as explained above.

"Look above to see Jon claiming intermediate forms that are not"

Such as? On what basis do you claim that they are not intermediate forms?

"and pontificate about the power of evolution without any examples thereof."

How on Earth can you look at what Jon wrote and conclude that this is what he did? He did the polar opposite, as anyone can see for themselves by reading Jon's comments: he named examples instead of "pontificating about the power of evolution".

"Hey, Jon, it is not your fault that evolution has never been observed. I cannot happen. It has not happen. It will not happen."

Hey Radar, it IS your fault that you ignore all the instances where evolution has been observed, both in the fossil record and in the present day. These have been pointed out to you more than once.

Anonymous said...

"Actually, Creation Science is getting somewhere and fast! Advances in science have led naturalism to dead ends with big brick walls that cannot be negotiated. No source for the Universe. No source for information. No source for life. Evolution has got a big fat zero in the bank account."

No source for the Universe = irrelevant to evolution.
No source for information = wrong, the source for information in this case is mutation plus natural selection
No source for life = also irrelevant to evolution, but there are plausible paths to lead to initial reproduction with variation, which is the origin of life

"Meanwhile more excavations in the Holy Lands have yielded more support for the Bible as not only historically correct"

Verifications of contemporary accounts in the Bible are irrelevant to the creation myth at the beginning of it, which was not written by any eye witness and was orally transmitted just like all other creation myths. The Genesis creation myth has no more validity than any other creation myth.

"but has confirmed older dates so the prophecies were not postdated at all but were actually written before the events. Such support of the Bible helps Creation and hurts Darwinism."

What do Bible prophecies have to do with Darwinism?

"Advances in science have shown that the basic cell is irreducibly complex."

Complex yes, irreducible complex no - that's just wishful thinking on your part.

"An entire new field of study known as Intelligent Design is doing real science in terms of testing and applying logic to what has been learned. While they are not Christians but rather a mix of various faiths, non-believers and agnostics such as Berlinski they have made a scientific case for a supernatural Designer without designating an identity."

ID is philosophical speculation, not science. What verifiable, falsifiable claim has ID ever produced that could actually be confirmed?

"Also, new scientific fields have by their very existence acknowledged the superiority of the Creator to man. Biomimetics and Biomimicry are man's attempt to copy God's designs and use them ourselves. How do you suppose drones and velcro and other such things were devised? By learning from organisms designed by God!"

Again, philosophical speculation and wishful thinking. Nature has run countless trial-and-error experiments and has improved the functionality of organisms. The organisms don't have to be designed by God to be extremely functional and something we can learn from. Biomimetics don't imply or acknowledge a superiority of God over man.

"Creationist organizations are growing in both number and membership. Darwinism is on the way out. Nope, no stings here. How about you?"

Both the acceptance of the theory of evolution and non-Christian faiths are on the rise.