How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[apothanein kerdos]

I've e-mailed both Michael and Phil to ask what they think of this whole issue. I'll post both replies when I get them.

Here's Behe's response:

Hi, [my name removed for privacy]. I do think common descent is well supported. The critical claim of Darwin's theory, however, is the role of random mutation (Natural selection is not the crux; RM is where all the work is done). My new book, The Edge of Evolution, is coming out in about a month. If you can hang on until then, I answer the kinds of questions you ask in it. Best wishes.

In other words, natural selection does exist. What he, and others, argue against is the random mutations that supposedly lead to beneficial changes within a species.

Does this settle it for you Horizon...or do you wish to mis-quote him further?

[The Lorax]

It’s an open ended question - isn’t common ancestry simply decent with modification constituting a general progression from simpler organisms to more complex organisms.

There is a historical trend of increased complexity, but this is not an intrinsic requirement of evolution. Evolution can go either way, towards complexity or simplicity. It just depends on what is favorable to the survival and reproduction of the organism.

Doesn’t this progression require the addition of new genetic information? Can a dinosaur “progress” to a bird without new genetic information added (those feathers have to come from somewhere)?

If you study evolution you will generally not hear the word "progress" used, because evolutionists don't stress an overall progression like you are saying. While the first forms of life on Earth definitely increased in complexity, evolving multicellularity, organ systems, etc, the theory of evolution does not claim complexity will always increase. Evolution tends towards complexity only insofar as that complexity is conducive to survival.

And to call any genetic information "new" is also questionable, since all "new" genetic information comes from mutations in the old stuff. Question: Is "new" genetic information simply more genetic information? If so, then people with Down's Syndrome have made more genetic "progress" than us, since they have more chromosomes. Think about this a minute, then revise your diction.

Lorax

Viral DNA insertions represent new genetic information. Polyploid cancer cells contain new information. Is that progression? Don’t you believe viruses evolve — just as bacteria, fruit flies, and hominids evolve?

It is certainly progression for the virus.

According to your definition, a virus-infected human has made more "progress" than his healthy peers, since he has more genetic information in the form of viral DNA. This suggests that progress is not the best word to use. And of course viruses evolve, why wouldn't they?

Good or bad I think it would certainly represent a regression of genetic information. I think Darwin himself may have had the most correct explanation when he wrote, "As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse."

OK. I have no problem with the words "regression" and "progression" as long as you specify that you are talking about the amount of genetic information, not fitness, not complexity, not anything else. But if you are talking about the amount of genetic information, you would be better off saying an "increase/decrease in genetic data," since that does not carry the unwanted nuances of the words you have been using.

[apothanein kerdos]

I've e-mailed both Michael and Phil to ask what they think of this whole issue. I'll post both replies when I get them.

Here's Behe's response:

Hi, [my name removed for privacy]. I do think common descent is well supported. The critical claim of Darwin's theory, however, is the role of random mutation (Natural selection is not the crux; RM is where all the work is done). My new book, The Edge of Evolution, is coming out in about a month. If you can hang on until then, I answer the kinds of questions you ask in it. Best wishes.

In other words, natural selection does exist. What he, and others, argue against is the random mutations that supposedly lead to beneficial changes within a species.

Does this settle it for you Horizon...or do you wish to mis-quote him further?

[The Lorax]

I've e-mailed both Michael and Phil to ask what they think of this whole issue. I'll post both replies when I get them.

Here's Behe's response:

Hi, [my name removed for privacy]. I do think common descent is well supported. The critical claim of Darwin's theory, however, is the role of random mutation (Natural selection is not the crux; RM is where all the work is done). My new book, The Edge of Evolution, is coming out in about a month. If you can hang on until then, I answer the kinds of questions you ask in it. Best wishes.

In other words, natural selection does exist. What he, and others, argue against is the random mutations that supposedly lead to beneficial changes within a species.

Does this settle it for you Horizon...or do you wish to mis-quote him further?

Wow, straight from the source.

[The Lorax]

If we are to believe the Darwinian concept of molecules-to-man evolution as you insist then your statement – “There is a historical trend of increased complexity” – is certainly one of the bigger understatements I have read lately. If one imagines the added complexity needed to go from the one-celled protozoa to what you and I are today it boggles the mind – wouldn’t you agree? Would you consider such an evolutionary progression to be a progression “towards complexity”? Would you agree that such a progression would fit my statement – “a general progression from simpler organisms to more complex organisms”? Progression is simply a forward movement through time.

Of course. My point was simply that the evolutionary tendency towards complexity is not strictly unidirectional.

Evolution is, by definition, the progression (forward movement) of simpler organisms (protozoa) morphing into more complex organisms (man) over a very long period of time (~ 4bn years).

The Horizoneast Dictionary fails again. Evolution is any intergenerational genetic change, not just ones that increase organismal complexity.

Evolution, n (biology) -- Changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. -- Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

According to your made-up definition, animals like caecilians would not be considered products of evolution, but rather that of a separate reverse process. This is not the case, however. All heritable genetic change--both "progressive" and "regressive"--falls under the umbrella of evolution.

You are operating under the false assumption that ALL viruses are detrimental to human health. Read up on the adeno-associated virus and how medical science is “progressing” by using this virus to actually benefit humankind through gene therapy.

Actually, I had only provided an example of why your notion that progress = amount of DNA is totally flawed; I was not making a categorical statement about the effect of viruses on human health. But thanks for the factoid.

Lorax

Think about this a minute, then revise your diction.

I hardly think you are one to coach others in diction especially after your fumbling of what you thought you meant by “stochastic processes” in your earlier posts. Oops...

Oh, I knew you couldn't resist. Let's not compare a single slip-up (totally my fault) with a complete pseudo-scientific vocabulary (your condition).

[apothanein kerdos]

I've e-mailed both Michael and Phil to ask what they think of this whole issue. I'll post both replies when I get them.

Here's Behe's response:

Hi, [my name removed for privacy]. I do think common descent is well supported. The critical claim of Darwin's theory, however, is the role of random mutation (Natural selection is not the crux; RM is where all the work is done). My new book, The Edge of Evolution, is coming out in about a month. If you can hang on until then, I answer the kinds of questions you ask in it. Best wishes.

In other words, natural selection does exist. What he, and others, argue against is the random mutations that supposedly lead to beneficial changes within a species.

Does this settle it for you Horizon...or do you wish to mis-quote him further?

I am not ignoring you mate

[ted]

I have always found the mods to go out of their way to be fair and they are concerned with what happens on this board.

Hey, thanks for the plug!

That said, I think we can all agree that this thread has turned a bit personal and a little too volatile. Here's my suggestion: Let's take a break, gather our thoughts, say a prayer or two, and come back later when our heads are clear.

Sound good?

I'll open the thread at a later time.

Thanks,

t.

[ted]

Think of it this way...

If we were gathered in someone's living room, or around their kitchen table, would we use the words and insults that are used in some of these threads and posts? Would we choose the same words if we were in a public restaurant? Would we let our anger loose just the same?

I highly doubt it. Instead, I would hope that we would present ourselves in a little better light, and present our opinions with a little more tact and kindness.

I had to whack some 11 posts from the thread due to clear violations of the TOS concerning how we address each other. It's disheartening because there was some very good information in a few of those posts, but they could not remain due to some of the pure meanness that was mixed in them. I don't make a habit of weeding out individual posts, nor do I have a tendency to do "line item vetoes" or editing of people's words. I do on occasion, but in this case, there was simply too much in some of these posts to make the effort worth while.

Here's what I would like to suggest:

1. Before your next post, take a minute to review past situations. If there is anyone that you simply always have problems with, take a moment to add them to your ignore list. In that situation, that person's post will still show up, but you will not be able to see it. By doing that, you will no longer be tempted to leave the original post's idea and charge forward with heated responses to that person's remarks.

2. Pray. If you've never tried prayer before posting, then you might consider it now. Trust me, it does make a difference, and may be this thread's only hope of survival.

3. Be aware of your surroundings. Look, we bring our words out to the public arena and debate issues. Try to imagine this place as a living room, a coffee house, or a friends house. By doing that, you may just show the proper respect afforded to a place like that. I doubt seriously that we would be going off on each other if we were guests in another's home.

4. Relax. Some of this stuff is so petty that it hardly deserves a response in the first place. Practice restraint and control in your posts. If we cannot handle a simple jab or insult (which shouldn't be happening in the first place, btw) without blowing up, how are we to handle the real persecution that is sure to come our way in the last days?

Please, I beg each of you, make adjustments in the way you respond to each other. There is some great information to be absorbed in some of these threads. Many people, including myself, learn a lot by reading them.

Whether you realize it or not, there are many others who would like to join in with the discussions, but do not because they do not want to discuss this stuff and run the risk of incurring the wrath of another simply for posting their opinions. So, they tend to shy away from these topics. Personally, I think that speaks volumes and is to our shame.

Needles to say, this will be the last warning for this thread, and many others like it. Myself, along with many of the Mods, are simply tired of having to come in and deal with the same exact situations in the same exact threads of the same exact topics. It's getting old. Patience is a virtue, that much is true, but it's also an expendable resource at the same time. Much like a rechargeable battery, it does wear down at times.

So, if you come across a thread which is closed in the future, and yours is one of the last posts in it, that should be a red flag for you to sit back and think about things.

May God bless each one of us, and guide our hands and thoughts.

Thread is reopened.

t.

[Guest]

Wow, straight from the source.

Thanks For Reminding Me Brother.

Speaking of The Straight Source

The Truth About Faith

Faith In The Lord Jesus Christ

The Creator

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3

The Offer

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 1:18

The Creator

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

The Offer

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:20

Worthy Desire

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Numbers 6:24-26

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

Thanks for the advice ted! It's very articulate and helpful. Is there any way it could be pinned in this forum for everyone to see?

This thread concerns an article by Boyce Rensberger. In order to stay on topic and to avoid confusion, it would be best if everyone speaks in the article's terms. Considering that Rensberger never speaks of "Darwinism" and considering also the number of disputes the word has provoked, I request that Darwinism and similarly unmentioned concepts are not discussed in my thread. Evolution by natural selection is the focus of the article, creationism too, and so should things be here.

Hopefully this is OK with everyone. If you are not comfortable with these topics or if you are unwilling to meet my request, PM me.