Community Blogs
Evolution: Fact or fiction
Preface: It has been said that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Another venerable homily is "There's no fool like an old fool." Being an old fool, I bravely venture to rush into the lake of fire that is science vs. religion, specifically Evolution vs. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, if you prefer. Please come along for the ride. I promise it will be an entertaining trip.
In the following text, numbers in parentheses indicate Notes at the end.
Introduction: The subject of this essay is typically characterized as a battle between science and religion. Several states and some school boards have made attempts to include Intelligent Design in school curricula. Most of these attempts have failed due to opposition from the scientific community (whoever or whatever that is) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), occasionally ending up in federal court as a suit over that non-existent wall of separation between church and state.
Unfortunately, the primary victims of this conflict are the students, many of whom are completely confused by what is presented as two diametrically opposing concepts of the origin and development of life on this planet. On the one hand, educators tell them that Darwinian Evolution is scientifically proven fact, while their religious teachers and sometimes their parents tell them otherwise. This distracting confusion is tragic and completely unnecessary, as I hope this discussion will demonstrate. It is my contention that there is no conflict between science and religion.
Science vs. Religion:
Virtually without exception, scientists and their advocates, as well as most religious leaders, assert that science and religion are two separate, exclusive domains without intersect or overlap. Religion's primary textbooks, the Holy Bible, Koran and Torah,(1) are considered essentially unscientific and "unproven" accounts. Conversely, science is considered by clerics of many faiths to be in irreconcilable conflict with religious dogma and "the work of the devil." Although the view of the inherent incompatibility between science and religion is also widely held by the general public, this is patent nonsense.By definition, science is the search for truth. Religion also asserts truth, although from a different source. There cannot be two conflicting truths occupying the same space. Both seekers of truth must arrive at the same explanation for a phenomenon, or one of them is wrong. We cannot have one truth Sunday morning and another during the rest of the week. Yet, that is exactly the situation that exists today with respect to the origin of life.
Science, by and large, asserts that life as we know it came about through a process of random mutation and natural selection, popularly known as Darwinian Evolution, while most religious authorities espouse the creation of all life by a supernatural "Intelligent Designer," a thinly veiled euphemism for God. The Great Question before us, then, is which one is true and which one is false, for so it must be.
Darwinian Evolution is officially a theory. A theory, or hypotheses, is defined as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."(2) It is by nature unproven, although you'd never guess that from the way it is taught as incontrovertible fact in most schools and universities.
The basic concept of this theory is that life evolved through random mutations, which prevailed when they offered an advantage over other members of the species and/or other competing species(3). In other words, if a random mutation resulted in an advantage in obtaining food, combat or reproduction, the lucky benefactor(s) would eventually prevail over its contemporaries and result in an evolutionary advancement. Darwin called this process natural selection, popularly referred to as "survival of the fittest." Obviously, a great deal of time--billions of years(4)--would be required to result in the species Homo Sapiens--us.
Creationism, on the other hand, argues that life came about through God's efforts and that man is His unique creation. In other words, every being was "designed" by God for a specific purpose. According to the Book of Genesis, this all took place over six days, the definition of a "day" being a matter of interpretation and not particularly significant, since we're talking about a supernatural event or "miracle".
The key elements in this "theory" are design and purpose. All creatures, including man (and of course, woman), were specifically designed for a purpose and came into being whole and complete. This concept does allow for adaptive change, but not species evolution (one species evolving into another). There remains no positive fossil evidence of transitional species despite over a century of desperate searching.
Irreducible Complexity: I am not going to get into a futile discussion of primordial soups, ammonia-methane atmospheres and fortuitous lightning strokes, which essentially involve the likelihood, or lack thereof, of a particular event or series of events leading to the creation of primitive life. The fact is, any event or situation, however improbable, can occur given the right set of circumstances, and a theory can be created to explain it. No physically possible occurrence can be said to be impossible, however unlikely. I believe that there is a much better, more compelling and irrefutable argument against Darwinian Evolution, something called "irreducible complexity."
Remember that Darwinian theory postulates a series of fortuitous random mutations driving the evolution of species. Unfortunately, the actual mechanism of genetic mutation does not support the concept of beneficial mutations. On the contrary, genetic mutations are almost universally undesirable(5) and are commonly referred to as birth defects. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that "good" mutations can occur.
It is self-evident that such beneficial mutations would be very rare and singular. However, many elements of the human body, as well as of living creatures in general, are complex and made up of a number of interdependent parts. For example, the human eye (See Figure 1) contains a lens and retina, which are very dissimilar in terms of tissue and function. The lens, via an ingenious set of tiny (ciliary) muscles, changes shape to focus the image on the retina, which contains color (cone) and black-and-white (rod) light receptor cells and nerve connections. The lens would be useless without the retina, and vice versa. Therefore, if eyesight were to constitute an evolutionary advantage, the optic lens and retina would have to have appeared together; in other words, at least two very different mutations would have had to occur in the same time frame. That's assuming, of course, that we already had the eyeball.
Figure 1 - Human Eye
Even simple eyes, such as those in insects, are marvels of interdependency. They also bear little resemblence to human eye anatomy, being designed for a very different purpose.
The human ear is an even more compelling example. The middle ear contains the three smallest bones in the human body, called the malleus (hammer), incus (anvil) and stapes (stirrup) (See Figure 2). These bones are connected to form an ingenious mechanical amplifier, amplifying and conducting sound vibrations from the eardrum (tympanic membrane) to the inner ear (oval window). In order to function as an evolutionary advance, these three very complex bones would all have to have arrived nearly simultaneously. If just one were missing or not right, the ear could not hear. Of course, we still have the eardrum and an incredibly complex and ingenious inner ear structure, incorporating ingenious balance and motion sensors as well as an unbelievable auditory sensing system (the Organ of Corti), that would be necessary to provide our evolving species with any advantage whatsoever over his (or her) contemporaries. Lots and lots of near-simultaneous mutations.
Figure 2 - Middle Ear
There are many other examples of irreducible complexity in nature. The process of conception, fetal development and birth is an amazing sequence of complex events, any one of which if absent or incomplete would likely result in failure of the entire process. Could this have developed through singular random mutations?
The complexity of the human genome virtually defies description. Human DNA consists of 20 different amino acid building blocks configured into 3 billion basic configurations, divided into 24 chromosomes containing 20,000 genes, all working together to define a human being. A single error or missing link could result in a catastrophic defect or complete failure of development.
The premise of irreducible complexity is that many components of living creatures are of such interdependent complexity that they couldn't have evolved as the result of random, singular mutations. Multiple simultaneous mutations would be required, an impossibility by any statistical measure. What we have, then, is that very rare phenomenon of a physical process that is not only unlikely or improbable, it is truly impossible.
Engineering: In addition to irreducible complexity, there is the incredibly brilliant engineering design of all living creatures. The human body, with its innumerable muscles, tendons, bones and organs, all working together and repairing themselves, is well beyond man's capability to reproduce, even in part (Baron von Frankenstein notwithstanding). The human brain even today holds secret much of its functioning and defies duplication or even description to any significant degree.
Birds are designed with hollow bones that store extra air for breathing as well as containing ingenious internal bracing for strength with minimal weight. The structure of the common mosquito, a tiny flying miracle of somewhat diabolical nature (at least for man), is a bio-mechanical marvel well beyond our puny technology. (Please, don't ask why it was created; it's bat and purple martin food.) Fish gills, which draw oxygen from water, can only be functionally duplicated with a device the size of a house. The reproductive cycle of the Monarch butterfly is one of the most amazingly beautiful processes in all of nature, to say nothing of the end product. We can't begin to duplicate even a part of that wonderful little miracle. (Look that one up. You'll be amazed.)
Should I begin to describe the uncountable number of little miracles that constitute plant reproduction from seed to cornstalk to oak tree? Note that the evolutionists won't touch that one. No, I leave that to your contemplation.
Conclusion: A theory stands only until it is disproved. The Darwinian theory of evolution is based wholly on natural selection resulting from random mutation. Due to the presence of multiple examples of irreducible complexity in all living creatures, there are innumerable critical elements of life in our world that simply could not have "evolved" by this method. Therefore, the entire theory must fall. Evolution according to Charles Darwin simply cannot be the truth.
The only remaining popular theory is Creationism, or Intelligent Design, if you prefer. While it also is not proven scientifically, as evolutionists repeatedly point out, neither has it been scientifically disproved. Although there are supposed scientific arguments against it, often taking exception to the Biblical timeline, these can be explained through reasonable contextual interpretation. Try comparing the current iteration of "Big Bang" theory to Genesis.
There is no scientific proof that it didn't happen essentially as the Book of Genesis describes. Creationism thus remains standing as the only plausible explanation for the existence of life on earth. Consequently, it is completely scientific, simply because it is the only "truth" left standing.
When it comes to science, one must be very careful to separate proven fact from theory. Most scientific "knowledge" is actually theory, a fact that is not generally acknowledged by the scientific community. The sad part is, that community continues to insist, sometimes violently, that evolution be taught as fact, to the exclusion of all other concepts. I maintain that it requires more faith to believe in evolution than in creation. It is, of course, up to you to choose.
Notes:
(1)The accounts of Creation in the Holy Bible-Old Testament, Torah and Koran are, for purposes of this discussion, essentially equivalent. In the interest of brevity, only the Biblical account will be referenced.
(2) Source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th definition.
(3) For the sake of simplicity, I use the term "species" to include genus or "kind".
(4) Some wise-guy statisticians have calculated the actual odds and come up with a much longer required time, something like 10128 years (1 followed by 128 zeroes). Others say even that's grossly optimistic.
(5) The one exception is the new-age assertion of "indigo children," who are supposed to be exceptionally gifted children, said to be an evolutionary advance. This idea, promoted mainly by a group of egotistical parents of self-identified precocious offspring, is not widely accepted.
The Bible offers the only reasonable explanation? And why is this? As you state "there is no scientific proof that it didn't happen."
But I'd like to ask why just the Bible's account? Why not other creation stories? Babylonian, Oloric, Norse, Navajo, Aztec, etc. If we take your argument, they are all essentially valid - even though each myths stands mutually exclusive from each other. A special plead you'll make nonetheless why the Bible is valid. Seriously, you believe that God blew on some dust and made humans? That's science? Can you propose an experiment to falsify this hypothesis? How will you collect evidence of God's breath? Sorry, but this religious notion is not a theory of evolution, but abiogenesis. If you want to argue against abiogenesis, make sure you stay in the right sphere of science, physics and chemistry.
We have a 150 years of Darwinian evolution. 150 years of testing and collecting fossils, showing transitions between species. And if we did not have the calcified remains, we would have our DNA, which contain proteins since switched off. Ask yourself, why the Designer made it necessary for us to consume EFA in our diet? Charles Darwin offered how natural selection could be proven false. That's what science does. It allows for testing and re-testing of hypothesis, because a theory is not a theory if it can not be tested. However, you find Biblical creation reasonable? By the way, which version of creation is reasonable in Genesis? There are two, you know. Did God create light, before he created stars? I suppose you believe that dinosaurs were playing in the garden of eden, and got on the arc with noah. Or satyrs existed as well.
As for your specifics. Typical creationist obfuscation of the facts. Before eyes and ears evolved, cells sensitive to light and sound developed first. In the case of eyes, we find several independent ways vision has evolved. Probability is not a problem - considering that we have a universe that is somewhere 14 billion years old and the Earth around 4.5 billion. The numbers you cite are not so impressive if you consider that you have a duration of time to play them out. As far as irreducible complexity, we have a variant on the watchmaker argument. Simply, who designed the designer? Another designer? Is God, this intelligent designer, self-designed?
I'm disappointed Al. I was really hoping for more, considering the breadth and depth of your education. Sorry. But your conclusion, is just one big argument from ignorance, "climbing mount improbable" all the way up.
Bravo, Al. Such well-researched, logical, and polite blogs are seldom seen on this site.
While I agree that evolution is not THE answer, it does have some answers (what about neanderthals and other versions of "early man"?).
Likewise, I don't think that intelligent design is THE answer, but it does have the ability to fill in blanks that science never will: science can answer many of the "hows" of life, but it can never answer the "whys".
Perhaps there is yet another theory, a hybrid of the two or something completely different, that we have yet to come up with.
Personally, I believe that humans are too puny in the grand scheme of things to ever have all the answers--it's quite arrogant, for evolutionists and creationists, to assume that we will ever understand the workings of the universe/God/or both.
Besides, if we had all the answers, if all life's mysteries were solved, what fun would that be?
Great blog. Thank you Al, for verifying what I have believed in all along. To bad this can’t be printed in school text books right after
the chapter on Darwinian Evolution. To not believe in a God or a heaven and believe your just worm bait when you die would be truly depressing.
MC: All I know is Darwinian evolution is scientifically impossible. Cells sensitive to light? What evolutionary impetus created them? I am not aware of the existence of ANY transitional species fossils. The "missing link" is still missing, after "150 years" of diligent, almost frantic, search. The certainly are still a lot of questions. I never said Genesis was proven fact, only that it wasn't DISproven, as I maintain is the case with Darwin. Darwin not only postulated the fallibility of his theory, but near the end of his life concluded that it probably was invalid.
Yes, there are many other theories of Cosmogony, including the Babylonian Enuma Elis, the Chinese P'an Ku, Polynesian Rangi and Papa and Eqyptian Nat and Geb. The Babylonian is particularly interesting in that it is written on six stone tablets, corresponding to the six days of Creation. Even aliens in flying saucers has its believers. The argument today, however, is between Intelligent Design (Creation) and Evolution, the two most prevalent and controversial theories. I have no problem teaching Darwin as a theory so long as its many weaknesses are pointed out. I just think ID deserves equal time.
Yes, true science tests its theories and discards the failures. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, where science has largely been corrupted by outside interests. The near-violent rejection of any alternative to Darwinian Evolution bothers me greatly. The Bible at least some supporting evidence going for it--Jericho's walls, the Red Sea (chariots), a great flood, plate tectonics (land gathered together in one place). Darwin has nothing except we're here and we dassn't acknowledge a superior being. Do you believe the "Big Bang" theory of creation? How about that zero-dimensional, infinitely dense point in space wherefrom it all started? And where did that guy come from? How about string theory? Everything is vibrating strings and two-dimensional membranes. Really!
By the way, just to muddy the water even further, I believe God also created time as a dimension in this creation. Immortality is the absence of a time dimension, hence the immortality of God and the soul. Oh oh, I think I just crossed a line. I better quit.
Anyway, thanks for plowing through my post and penning a very thoughtful reply, MC. My main purpose is to get folks to think beyond the curtain of hype, advocacy and PC within which we are encased today. Mission accomplished.
Thanks, Ellen. As I said in my response to MC, there are still many questions. They will never be answered until we remove the blinders of prejudice and advocacy from science. Keep having fun; I am.
AL: Before I wade back in...is God self-designed?
<P>MC: I have absolutely no idea, and neither does anyone else. As I keep saying (is anyone listening?), I don't have all the answers. As the TV CSI folks say, there's only the evidence. I believe the evidence debunks the essential principles of Darwinian evolution, so I look for an alternative. The scientist-engineer in me is attracted to Intelligent Design because there is clear, unmistakable evidence of absolutely brilliant and advanced design in the world around us. This, to me, requires an intelligence far superior to ours. God fits the bill.</P>
<P>Let me tell you a story. I was raised in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church back when it was conservative: Sunday School, confirmation, the whole nine yards. In grade school, a 6th Grade Science teacher whom I worshipped began the teaching of evolution. This raised questions which I posed to my Sunday School teacher who said, "That's the work of the Devil!"</P>
<P>I was turned off by this non-answer and drifted away from the church; I guess I was sort of an agnostic until college. There I began thinking more about evolution and began to doubt it, mainly because of the weaknesses and inconsistencies I've enumerated. I re-examined Scripture and found the Genesis account to be much more logical (yes, that's right; logical!) than Darwin. I returned to the church and have been there ever since. I have studied the entire Bible and have yet to identify a single clear inconsistency between Scripture and science, so long as you keep an open mind and allow for context.</P>
<P>So, fire away, MC. You can't prove anything and neither can I. We just have to choose the one that satisfies our inner child. I can only assure you I arrived at my belief, and that is solely what it is, through rational, open-minded thought and not the pulpit. If that is ignorant, then so be it.</P>
Al - So the earth is about 6,000 years old?
Al - One other thing. The Bible was written by human beings, so if we can't even come close to engenering natures little miracles being humans, then how do we know god exists if humans wrote the bible?
@Al: All you propose for a solution is one mystery for another. You've answered nothing. Sorry. As I've stated before, your argument is here is either formally known as the argument from ignorance or design argument. God is necessarily more complex than his creation, therefor what created god?
I'll leave you to your wishful thinking.
You worshiped your 6th grade science teacher?
Liberal Hammer: "The earth is about 6000 years old?"-- The Bible is notoriously sloppy with numbers (they weren't mathematicians). The 6000--actually anywhere up to 14,000--is derived from Chronicles I and II, you know, all those begats. Ezra might have missed a few. I am also very skeptical of the accuracy of carbon dating, so as far as I am concerned, the earth's age is indeterminate. I very much doubt the 4.3 billion years, which is largely a construct to justify evolution. Who counted that and the supposed 14 billion year age of the universe?
About the Bible being written by human beings, Adolf Hitler never wrote a thing, but I believe what William L. Shirer wrote about him and the Nazis. For me, Creation is evidence of God's existence. If He didn't do it, who did? Certainly not man and certainly not random chance. There is a scientific principle (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) that states that systems left alone tend to disassociate into anarchy. There is no evidence of a system self-organizing into a higher state of order. However, Darwinian evolution claims exactly that.
Jeff: Yes, I did. Her name was Miss Bleisch and she liked me. I was an insecure 11-year-old nerdy kid so I fell madly in love with her. (She was old enough to be my mother, so it wasn't raging hormones.)
MC: As opposed to you, I don't claim to have all the answers. God is described as immortal, which obviates a beginning since immortality implies the absence of a time dimension. Just like your "scientific" non-dimensional particle of infinite mass, He/it just is/was. I do admit to much ignorance. The more answers I find, the more questions I encounter. It must be nice to know it all.
LH: Oops, I forgot about "Mein Kampf." O.K., he never wrote anything descriptive about himself. Anyway, Shirer was anything but complimentary.
@AL: Basic logic is very simple to learn. You can find it anywhere online, and I am no expert. But I do know when some one applies very easily detectable fallacious arguments in support of a position. The very fact that, not only you formally argue from ignorance, but when pressed to substantiate your claims you offer ignorance as some kind of solution. Fact is, with scientific theories with theories like evolution, germ theory, and gravity - we know a great deal about the world and universe around us. You are no authority on science, and neither am I. Daily I get feeds in how some new aspect of evolution has been proven correct again - either on the cellular level or on the macro, species level. This means, Al, that we have multiple lines of evidence that natural selection does in fact exist. But then again, you are a global warming denier - who ignores the multiple lines of evidence for that as well.
You believe God created time. I'm sorry, but God is necessarily subservient to time. Without time, God would not be able to do anything - including exist over time.
I'm just flabbergasted reading this post Al. Seriously, you resort to typical creationist tropes. And, I still can't believe that you would argue for ignorance. You may be a "scientist-engineer" but your no evolutionary development biologist, or physicist, or chemist.
Anyway, I'll let get you get back to arguing how many angels can dance on a pin head, and let you also resume building God in your image.
MC: Don't be flabbergasted. Life is too short. For the record, I did not say God invented time, I said immortality implies the lack of a time dimension. No, I am not an "evolutionary development biologist" (what the @#% is that?). I also do not have degrees in physics or chemistry, but learned much in my aerospace life.
Natural selection ("survival of the fittest") is only a part of Darwinism; it's the rest I have a problem with. Once again, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!, not one single degree. There are only proven-flawed computer projections and deliberate disregard of evidence of solar irradiance and CO2 irrelevence. Cosmology, with its Big Bang, black holes, dark matter and space dust is a joke.
There is much in science that is unexplained. Subatomic particles (Muons) that appear before collision (i.e. pre-knowledge), red-shift banding, a perfectly square nebula, gamma ray pulsatons, and then the 800-pound gorilla: gravity, which defies all attempts to explain it. Even 5% of UFO sightings are scientifically unexplainable.
To avoid commentary on a subject devoid of definitive data is not illogical, it is simple intellectual honesty. Einstein, Socrates, Spinoza, Thomas Acquinas et al, all admitted ignorance. I count myself in good company.
I think we've pretty well killed this subject. Before someone says something they will regret, let's call it a day and enjoy the last gasp of summer. After all, winter's coming.
@AL: Darwin, never stated survival of the fittess, and you grossly misunderstand the role of mutation in an organism. More creationist nonsense. Yes, much to learn about gravity - so I like my explanation better. Angels either push things up or down. Since you Al do not have a better explanation - my must be correct.
By the way, for the sake of argument, evolution is entirely false. Can you prove positive evidence of the designer, since "intelligent designer" is a noun? Do you have the equivalent of big foot's carcass for this person? Oh yeah, the Bible is your evidence and your science book. I hope in your aeronautics career you didn't train from the Bible too.
Can you tell me when satan was a snake, did he have a high raspy voice, or a low voice? To me these like questions you should really be investigating.
Al - "Certainly not man and certainly not random chance. There is a scientific principle (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) that states that systems left alone tend to disassociate into anarchy. There is no evidence of a system self-organizing into a higher state of order. However, Darwinian evolution claims exactly that."
That's not exactly correct, after a sperm and egg combine their genetic data, be it in an egg or a womb, the cells start to diferentiate.
I can go on, but you get the picture, but they are organizing themselves into a higher order.
But I've been thinking more about the design aspect. Lets say evolution never existed and everything was created, engineered and desgn to meet certain specifications by a benevolent omnipotent creator god.
Let's take the hormone testosterone. We know that testosterone is essential for agressive behaviour, sexual drive, and heart attacks. Why is the regulation of this hormone allowed to have adverse affects on a person?
MC: Sarcasm does not become you, my friend. It is the refuge of those who have run out of factual arguments. By the way, you once asked how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Answer: As many as want to.
LH: Human gestation is not a system that is left alone. It is precisely programmed by our DNA. I have no answer to your testosterone question except that procreation would be tough without it, and we humans seem to have quite a talent for screwing up good things into bad. I think it's called "free will."
@Al: Factual arguments? Al. You've not presented one factual argument here. Fact is, we know much about the development of organisms - eyes included.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html I'm still waiting for some kind of positive proof of the God of Genesis - the God who blew on some dirt and made humans. Gap arguments are not evidence.
Agan, I would fully urge you and the other readers to do some research. Learn about how the scientific method works and study the research for yourself. Al, could have easily did this as well, but decided for whatever reason, to misrepresent the evidence to you and preach from the Bible special pleading one creation argument against the others.
Ellen asked you a very important question, regarding Neanderthals and other proto-humans or proto-apes. Are they the result of intelligent design? Why are they extinct? Will of God? Or just bad design? Or perhaps they either slowly evolved into other other species or went extinct because they were not able to adapt to fast changing conditions. And what about the evolution of horses, or whales? Or birds? We find enough transitory fossils of those species. It's not at that hard to think inductively from that point and collect. New for you Al, we are all transitory fossils - missing links. Why do chimpanzees have more genes as compared humans? Let's see your explanation would be they were designed that way. Which tells us nothing. However, if we take an evolutionary model, we find that chimps evolved somewhere after us - with the addition of extra genes.
But anyway, as sarcasm does not become me, bronze age beliefs do not become you either Al.
<P>MC: You evolutionists continue to equate adaptation and development with "evolution". I fully agree that there has been substantial environmental adaptation through the ages, including man. Even over fairly recent history--since the Middle Ages--mankind has gotten taller (and, regrettably, fatter, mainly due to better, or at least more plentiful, nutrition.) Fossils of "early man" are few and far between, unless you count hoaxes like Piltdown Man, who was prominently displayed as "proof" of evolution when I was in grade school. Sometimes little more than a jawbone is used to create a fanciful image of "early man." Some of these rare fossils may be the result of mutation, i.e. birth defects. This is my answer to Ellen's question, which I agree I did not adequately address. Sorry, Ellen.</P>
<P>PBS's "hypothesis" of the development of the human eye is so stretched and full of gaps it is almost laughable. They stretch the possible well into the statistically impossible. It reminds me of an old cartoon showing a student required to work a complex mathematical derivation on a classroom blackboard. He begins with the postulate at the top and then draws a dashed line to the result written at the bottom, labeling the line, "Then a miracle happens."</P>
<P>Horses apparently developed from the Eohippus, essentially a small horse, not another species. Perhaps all you evolutionists should look up the definition of "species". I'm not sure what the problem is with whales and birds. They've been around a long time more or less just as they are.</P>
<P>So long as we're throwing around questions, why did fish grow legs and crawl up on land? Why did a dinosaur decide to grow feathers and fly? Seems like they were doing O.K. where they were. Also, why did the ape shed his hair and run around naked? (Yeah, I know; he decided to become carnivorous and chase after antelope.) Was it too hot? Maybe it was global warming. Gee, the poor present day apes must be really uncomfortable. I remember an observation by Desmond Morris, author of "The Naked Ape," who asserted that the fact that the hair on our back grows downward and inward toward the spine "proves" that we used to swim in the sea, i.e. we were fish. (Laminar water flow over our backs.) Gee, I would never have thought of that.</P>
<P>The dinosaur question is actually a good one. There is a suggestion in Genesis of more than one creation. The reference to "giants in the earth" could refer to dinosaurs. Yes, maybe that was something that didn't work out and had to be redone. There is also a suggestion that errant angels screwed things up (the "Nephalim").</P>
<P>The Great Flood was clearly a "let's erase it and start over" event. Maybe Noah didn't collect all species into the ark, leaving out a few that weren't working out too well. I'm not a believer in an omni-get-it-right-all-the-time God. The arrival of Jesus certainly is a major departure from the Old Testament way of doing things. In fact, even in the OT God adopts different methods to try to control man, all mostly unsuccessful. That's the problem with free will.</P>
<P>Your approach to the Biblical account is that it is pure myth. With that premise, you expend all your efforts to debunk it instead of looking at it honestly and objectively. Starting with a premise and then trying desperately to prove it is not the scientific method, at least not the classical one I was taught.</P>
<P>O.K., MC, I'll let you have the last word, should you be so inclined. Then I'm done with this fascinating but essentially pointless discourse. I'm sure we're boring the heck out of other viewers.</P>
Irreducible complexity, or "intellectual surrender" was a focal point of the Dover Trial. Nice try, Al, but this has been refuted before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity .
@AL: Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax by science and by the science of evolution. Creationist were mute.
<P>Victor: Thanks for your comment. The Dover trial essentially hinged on the fact that Michael Behe's arguments for irreduceable complexity had not been "peer reviewed" in scientific journals. This could very well be due to the fact that they didn't want to touch it for fear of censure by the evolutionist ecclesiastical hierarchy. The anti-irreduceable complexity argument seems to hinge on the premise that a million monkeys pounding on a million typewriters for a million years would produce the Book of Genesis. Someone analyzed this statistically and found that it would take 10 to the 128th power of years (too long to write out) to produce just the first sentence.</P>
<P>The Wikipedia article, which I have read, essentially states that science rejects Behe's conclusions and presents some amazingly convoluted arguments to support their position. I am flabbergasted! The scientific community rejects intelligent design!</P>
<P>The description of the "evolution" of the eye is particularly instructive. After postulating a series of individual biological enhancements to produce the parts of the eye, a final "miracle" occurs to create the complex chemical constituents through "self-organizing chemical processes." I rest my case. </P>
<P>The argument that modern science rejects ID and IC does not surprise me in the least. I don't base my arguments on the writings of Michael Behe, which I have not read. I have arrived at my opinions completely independently. My post reflects only my own conclusions, no-one else's. (Although I admit to having read and liked Henry Morris' book "The Harmony of Science and Scripture.")</P>
<P>In response to your second comment (to "Beauty in Creation"), to hear that someone has written a book stating that God is dead doesn't really surprise me. A basic tenet of liberalism is the elitist superiority of (certain) men/women. They categorically reject the concept of a being superior to themselves. Hence the frantic and frequently convoluted defense of the self-serving humanist parody that modern science has become. I mourn the death of science.</P>
Al - Touche on the DNA', I am a student of biology and ecology and not of physics.
But I have to ask this question, your reply about testosterone was not clear. Let me re-phrase it.
Why would a omnipresent benelovent creator god engineer an imperfect mechanism, such as testosterone, that can have adverse affects on the creation?
I can only think of 3 reasons why:
1) The God of the Torah is not benevolent
2) The God of the Torah is not perfect
3) The God of the Torah is experimenting
LH: I'm not sure I understand your problem. Testosterone is an adrogenic steroid essential for the development of normal masculinity, including sexual development. Without it, the male reproductive role would not be possible. Overproduction, an adrenal disorder, can cause virulization or excessive masculinity, which in rare cases can result in aggressive behavior. This is a disease, not a normal function of an essential human hormone. Unless you want to blame God for all illness, including the common cold, I fail to see testosterone as evidence of heavenly inimicality.
People, including women, exhibit aggressive and antisocial behavior for myriad reasons. Hormonal imbalance is only one. A more likely culprit is society's abandonment of moral teaching and a lack of empathy for our fellow man. William Bennett predicted some years ago that removal of instruction in Judeo-Christian moral principles from the schools would result in a generation of monstrous children and young adults. While a bit strong, I think we've seen a remarkable increase in inappropriate response to real or imagined adversity over the last few decades. The massacre of six people because of a girlfriend's spurning or killing for a baseball cap are hardly appropriate responses. I don't think we can blame an androgenic hormone or the God that created it for that.
Man has free will. His behavior is his own responsibility. God will judge, not control.
Al - One last thing, why do intelligent design propronenets rely on dis-proving and dis-crediting evolution, rather than using the scientific method to prove their own theory?
At the moment, I only see intelligent design as a poltical ploy by fundamentalist christians who want to pass off creationism to have it taught in public schools.
Would it not be more valid to have the "Intelligent design" theory no base it's entire existence on denying evolution, fuzzying the difference between religion and science?
Good point, LH. The problem is that's exactly what the evolutionists that oppose ID do. The Wikipedia article referencing Michael Behe featured quotes from a number of evolutionists twisting themselves into scientific knots trying to debunk his claims. I guess maybe it's a bit of tit for tat.
I hope I succeeded in my article in presenting some information supporting ID rather than just attacking evolution. The principle of irreduceable complexity actually is more an argument for ID than an attack on evolution, although it's hard to separate the two because they are such diametrical opposites. Nevertheless, I agree with you that many creationists get carried away, just like my old Sunday School teacher who asserted that "It's (evolution) the work of the Devil!"
Thanks for the comment.
AL:I don't quite see the problem with evolution vs creationism. Evolutionists must agree that nothing starts from nothing.I do think that evolution explains a lot of the fossil evidence and progression of mankind from caves to the present day. Change is the only thing that stays the same.
My point is something had to put the process in motion. I have no problem with evolution, God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform,but someone/thing had to start the ball rolling.
If anyone doubts the existance of God I suggest they watch the documentary, "Planet Earth" Just the fact of the tilt in the earth's axis and the seasons is enough to convince me of a higher power.
I can imagine the replys to the statement,nothing starts from nothing,where did God come from? My reply would have to be from,long, long ago in a galaxy far far away.
Thanks
J.R.: Unfortunately, they don't. Darminian Evolution postulates (as presently taught) that it all started from nothing--well, maybe air and water--and all species developed from an amino acid created by a lightning bolt. The problem is with species transition, of which there is no fossil evidence, i.e. the so-called 'missing link." I have no problem with adaptation and development within a species or "kind".
Great observation on the Earth's tilt. The marvelous balance of nature and superb eco-biological engineering clearly evident in the world around us is clear evidence to me of a "designer". As to where God came from, I leave that to wild speculation. I take Genesis at its word that He just "was".
Thanks for the thoughtful comments J.R. Better late than never.
Tags: Science and Technology
Permalink | Email This Blog