Evolution-Creation Assertion Review
Thursday and Friday will leave me with little blogging time due to work pressures, so here is a small review:
What I believe
I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it, including all life, and that the Bible is an accurate historical representation of this. The Bible is, however, not a scientific textbook and therefore details of how this was accomplished must be sought within the evidence available to us by what means we may have to research it. I am not a believer in evolution but within the confines of this blog there has been a long, ongoing dialogue concerning several aspects of the debate between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation. I also periodically post a Carnival, posting any contributed articles addressing this subject that are not profane, whether I agree with the content or not.
darwin is dead carnival - So why didn't his hypothesis die with him?
Thermodynamics
It is my view, and the view of many scientists, some of whom I have previously quoted, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is at work in the world at large despite the fact that the Earth is an "open system" due to the energy derived from the sun. I do not subscribe to the idea that the 2nd Law does not apply to any but specially controlled "closed system" situations. Observations of teenager bedrooms, for instance, will teach you this, as does the contents of your refrigerator and the condition of your garage. Therefore I will not retract my contention that evolution is posited to work contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Huxley's Horse
One commenter in particular keeps asking me to either go back to the horse and explain my model or to retract my previous assertions. He and others have pointed out that Huxley himself believed that the application of natural selection would make the impossible possible. In fact, when I calculated the odds I included natural selection as a factor, likely giving it probably more credit than deserved. It is the premise itself that matters, not whether Huxley believed one way or the other himself. The three main points here:
1) I did include natural selection in my consideration of the odds.
2) Probabalistic models have been called into question and we are addressing that in the matter of abiogenesis. The probabalistic model of simple-organism-to-horse will not be considered until we have some kind of agreement about how probabalistic models might work.
3) I will in no way and by no means withdraw my assertion that the evolution from simple-organism-to-horse is statistically impossible. If you disagree, you may either wait until I post on this again and express your disagreement at that time, or, you can post your own statistical model to refute the assertion.
Abiogenesis
The question of how life may have come from non-life is not a part of evolutionary science today. While it is being studied by many, the main concern of evolutionary scientists is how simpler life might evolve into more complex life. The matter of abiogenesis may be crucial metaphysically but the evolutionary scientist is not under any mandate to address this issue. This is a concession on my part that I wanted to repeat for the sake of posterity.
Natural Selection
I do not believe that natural selection is in any way a part of the theoretical path from non-life to life. I do, however, believe that natural selection would have to be integral to any path from simple to complex life. I also agree that natural selection operates without any controlling intelligence, that is, it is not directed by God, man or beast but is an observed operation by which the more suitable characteristics within a gene pool are, by being more likely to survive and reproduce, selected as traits that will be passed on to succeeding generations. No probabalistic model attempting to reproduce evolution can be taken seriously without including the operation of natural selection.
Due to a very dire need to feed the Bulldog, that is all until tomorrow. Cheers!
What I believe
I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it, including all life, and that the Bible is an accurate historical representation of this. The Bible is, however, not a scientific textbook and therefore details of how this was accomplished must be sought within the evidence available to us by what means we may have to research it. I am not a believer in evolution but within the confines of this blog there has been a long, ongoing dialogue concerning several aspects of the debate between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation. I also periodically post a Carnival, posting any contributed articles addressing this subject that are not profane, whether I agree with the content or not.
darwin is dead carnival - So why didn't his hypothesis die with him?
Thermodynamics
It is my view, and the view of many scientists, some of whom I have previously quoted, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is at work in the world at large despite the fact that the Earth is an "open system" due to the energy derived from the sun. I do not subscribe to the idea that the 2nd Law does not apply to any but specially controlled "closed system" situations. Observations of teenager bedrooms, for instance, will teach you this, as does the contents of your refrigerator and the condition of your garage. Therefore I will not retract my contention that evolution is posited to work contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Huxley's Horse
One commenter in particular keeps asking me to either go back to the horse and explain my model or to retract my previous assertions. He and others have pointed out that Huxley himself believed that the application of natural selection would make the impossible possible. In fact, when I calculated the odds I included natural selection as a factor, likely giving it probably more credit than deserved. It is the premise itself that matters, not whether Huxley believed one way or the other himself. The three main points here:
1) I did include natural selection in my consideration of the odds.
2) Probabalistic models have been called into question and we are addressing that in the matter of abiogenesis. The probabalistic model of simple-organism-to-horse will not be considered until we have some kind of agreement about how probabalistic models might work.
3) I will in no way and by no means withdraw my assertion that the evolution from simple-organism-to-horse is statistically impossible. If you disagree, you may either wait until I post on this again and express your disagreement at that time, or, you can post your own statistical model to refute the assertion.
Abiogenesis
The question of how life may have come from non-life is not a part of evolutionary science today. While it is being studied by many, the main concern of evolutionary scientists is how simpler life might evolve into more complex life. The matter of abiogenesis may be crucial metaphysically but the evolutionary scientist is not under any mandate to address this issue. This is a concession on my part that I wanted to repeat for the sake of posterity.
Natural Selection
I do not believe that natural selection is in any way a part of the theoretical path from non-life to life. I do, however, believe that natural selection would have to be integral to any path from simple to complex life. I also agree that natural selection operates without any controlling intelligence, that is, it is not directed by God, man or beast but is an observed operation by which the more suitable characteristics within a gene pool are, by being more likely to survive and reproduce, selected as traits that will be passed on to succeeding generations. No probabalistic model attempting to reproduce evolution can be taken seriously without including the operation of natural selection.
Due to a very dire need to feed the Bulldog, that is all until tomorrow. Cheers!