How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[The Lorax]

Lorax

Are you saying natural selection can't occur in a universe created by gods? ...Surely it can.

Does neo-Darwinism allow such unorthodoxy? As Richard Dawkins so succinctly stated, "...[natural selection] has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all…”

Dawkins is, in this case, completely right! Natural selection has no purpose or mind of its own. It is just a physical process. That is not to say it couldn't be engineered for a purpose by someone or something with a mind.

As the first Darwinist that stumbles across your post would say – "where is your scientific evidence that “mutations are deterministic?"

Mutations are caused by genetic changes which occur on a molecular level. There occur interactions between particles (like, for instance, a photon hitting adjacent thymines causing dimerization) that create mutations in the DNA. The particles move according to physical laws and thus is mutation deterministic.

Natural selection is a stochastic process and such processes are by definition “non-deterministic” in that a state does not fully determine its next state.

It appears I've misused the word. (In ecology we use the term to describe apparently random fluctuations in graphs.) Sorry, I'll use the word "pseudo-random" from now on. That's what I have meant to say.

Doesn’t Darwinism tell us the origin of mutations “originated” when life was “sparked” in Darwin’s “warm little pond”? For Darwinian evolution to be true mutations would be required from the get-go.

Natural selection doesn't tell us that.

Btw recent studies of DNA/RNA mutations provide strong evidence that mutations do not provide any significant new levels of information? Instead, they tend to produce degradation of the information. This appears to do great harm to your Darwinian model?

Generally mutations are deleterious. This is something geneticists have been acutely aware of for years, yet most happen to be evolutionists. Funny.

I am not here to restrict God’s creative abilities…I am here to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution represents a “philosophy programme” (Popper) and is not based on the scientific method.

Have fun with that.

[The Lorax]

But if almost all mutations are deleterious to the fitness of any given organism and if mutations do not provide any significant new levels of information but tend to produce degradation of information, how can we say mutations are a viable mechanism for reptile-to-bird morphing. I know what Dawkins says but what to you think? How exactly does it work (with or without God’s guidance)?

All that matters is that there are some beneficial mutations and some ability to produce "new" information, even if these are dwarfed by the frequency of deleterious mutations that arise. While "good" mutations seem staggeringly rare on our timescale, evolution works on a much larger scale of time. And as with all things so large and impersonal, this idea may be a little difficult to wrap one's head around.

You are correct but Darwinian evolution does tell us that – right? I am not sure if you have realized it yet but Darwinists misuse anything (and everything) that pertains to biological science in a concerted effort to hood-wink the unsuspecting into believing their atheistic worldview is science – the benign phrase “natural selection” is no exception to this rule.

Another Darwinism-is-religion rant. Wake me when it's relevant.

Natural selection. That is what I am talking about, Horizoneast. But go ahead and rant about whatever pleases you.

[MorningGlory]

Just a casual observation from the sidelines as I am not involved in this discussion. Why does 'Darwinism' get dragged into every single thread that remotely pertains to evolution, Creation, or jelly doughnuts? I just want to know WHY? It makes these other wise interesting debates redundant and sophmoric. Remember that nonparticpants are always perusing these discussions.

[The Lorax]

Just a casual observation from the sidelines as I am not involved in this discussion. Why does 'Darwinism' get dragged into every single thread that remotely pertains to evolution, Creation, or jelly doughnuts? I just want to know WHY? It makes these other wise interesting debates redundant and sophmoric. Remember that nonparticpants are always perusing these discussions.

Thank you.

[The Lorax]

Just a casual observation from the sidelines as I am not involved in this discussion. Why does 'Darwinism' get dragged into every single thread that remotely pertains to evolution, Creation, or jelly doughnuts? I just want to know WHY? It makes these other wise interesting debates redundant and sophmoric. Remember that nonparticpants are always perusing these discussions.

Just a causal answer – if you will take the time to read the Post article referenced in the OP you will plainly see references to “Darwin” and “Darwinian evolution” (no jelly donuts). If the debate centers on Darwinism, WHY are you so bothered when Darwinism is mentioned? Do you think it somehow possible to discuss the science of biological evolution without discussing Darwinian evolution?

We already know your opinions about Darwinism, Horizoneast. If you really need to continue sharing them, do so when until it's relevant.

The article centers on evolution by natural selection, not Darwinism. It talks about Darwin and uses the phrase "Darwinian evolution" once, but it never mentions "Darwinism" at all, much less the Horizoneast Dictionary definition of the word. The article talks most frequently about natural selection, a term you have been avoiding.

Creationists can be spotted a mile away thanks to their avoidance of scientific terms.

[apothanein kerdos]

Just a casual observation from the sidelines as I am not involved in this discussion. Why does 'Darwinism' get dragged into every single thread that remotely pertains to evolution, Creation, or jelly doughnuts? I just want to know WHY? It makes these other wise interesting debates redundant and sophmoric. Remember that nonparticpants are always perusing these discussions.

Because it's a philosophy attached to Evolution. There is Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution and Intelligent Evolution. The former teaches that the scientific evidence points to there being no Designer, or not need of a Designer (God). This is the majority view among mainstream scientists. The latter teaches that God used evolution for His creation, even if in a limited capacity (and allowed for "random" mutations), and that there is evidence which points to this.

[apothanein kerdos]

The article centers on evolution by natural selection, not Darwinism.

Wrong. The article discredits irreducible complexity, which argues against Darwinism.

[The Lorax]

Because it's a philosophy attached to Evolution. There is Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution and Intelligent Evolution. The former teaches that the scientific evidence points to there being no Designer, or not need of a Designer (God). This is the majority view among mainstream scientists. The latter teaches that God used evolution for His creation, even if in a limited capacity (and allowed for "random" mutations), and that there is evidence which points to this.

It is true evolutionists often tend to be naturalists, but that doesn't mean the two titles are interchangeable. I am an evolutionist, not a naturalist, yet you guys rushed to a false conclusion and misrepresented my position. Similarly, you incorrectly switch a scientific theory--natural selection--with the broader worldview of naturalism whenever it is convenient. Cool your jets.

[The Lorax]

The article centers on evolution by natural selection, not Darwinism.

Wrong. The article discredits irreducible complexity, which argues against Darwinism.

That's a sad excuse. Too bad the article doesn't talk about Darwinism.

When you guys can put down your straw men maybe will have a fruitful conversation.

[apothanein kerdos]

Because it's a philosophy attached to Evolution. There is Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution and Intelligent Evolution. The former teaches that the scientific evidence points to there being no Designer, or not need of a Designer (God). This is the majority view among mainstream scientists. The latter teaches that God used evolution for His creation, even if in a limited capacity (and allowed for "random" mutations), and that there is evidence which points to this.

It is true evolutionists often tend to be naturalists, but that doesn't mean the two titles are interchangeable. I am an evolutionist, not a naturalist, yet you guys rushed to a false conclusion and misrepresented my position. Similarly, you incorrectly switch a scientific theory--natural selection--with the broader worldview of naturalism. Cool your jets.

Stop it Lorax. In your haste to a rabid defense of science, you haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying. I am not like Horizon east in this matter, I know how to differentiate between evolution and Naturalism. I have master's credit on studying this issue, from someone I believe is an expert in differentiating between the two...so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll try to find it, but Horizon and I got into it over the definition of Evolution and Darwinism. He does think the two are linked...I don't. For Pete's sake, I believe in evolution...and I thought you knew this...so how could I support the idea that all evolutionist beliefs are Darwinian?

If anyone needs to cool their jets, it is you mate.