How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[forrestkc]

The problem is much of what has been stated in the article has been debunked since 1997. Dembski has shown that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to have occurred naturally.

There have been several peer-reviewed articles that have refuted his contention. Just the same, even if that were not the case, the mathematical probability for the existance of an intelligent designer capable of designing life is exponetially higher than the mathmatical possibility for naturalistic evolution.

Behe has come out with the irreducible complexity. We have discovered more and more about cell function and genetic functions that point toward design and not naturalism...in other words, the article is LONG out of date.

Behe, he who argues from ignorance. There have been several peer reviewed articles published since Behe's book that completely refute his contentions with empirical evidence and observation.

See:

# Gibbons, I. R. (1995). "Dynein family of motor proteins: Present status and future questions". Cell Motilityand the Cytoskeleton 32 (2): 136-144.

#Asai, D. J.; Koonce, M. F. (2001). "The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution". Trends in Cell Biology 11 (5): 196-202.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

#Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution." Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5 (pp. 602

[DarkNebulaWelder]

The problem is much of what has been stated in the article has been debunked since 1997. Dembski has shown that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to have occurred naturally. Behe has come out with the irreducible complexity. We have discovered more and more about cell function and genetic functions that point toward design and not naturalism...in other words, the article is LONG out of date.

Take, for instance, this quote:

In 1848, 98 percent of these moths were gray, a color that hid them from birds when they perched on gray lichens that covered tree trunks.

Peppered moths don't even perch on trees...this has been known since the 1980's.

Essentially, it sets up straw men and then beats them down.

I'm not sure of any mathematical formulas that prove OR debunk evolution.

The only formula which I can cite off-hand is the Drake Equation, which is used primarily to debunk the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life....The Fermi paradox would naturally follow suit.

Along these lines, my reasoning is this: If evolution WERE fact, wouldn't it make sense that such processes could take place elsewhere in the Universe? It's hard to believe that evolution, a purely natural process, would ONLY take place within the cluster of our own galaxy.....and anyhow, who's to say that evolution, if it WERE to take place, could ONLY take place in OUR environment? THIS cannot be proven.

So, I say........evolution, schmevolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The fact that we have no solid proof of extraterrestrial life, aside from the Roswell incident (which is speculative) pretty much rules out evolution in my mind.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

forrestkc

I think that God is behind evolution some how. I don't know how. I have no empirical proof, but I believe that. That is not science though.

On what evidence do you base your notion that God is "behind evolution some how"? Is this something you just pulled out of the air or have you read it in the Bible? You do realize that evolution is a secular religion designed as an alternative to Christianity - right?

Okay....due to the fact that there are 90 some-odd posts in this thread, I haven't read the entire thing, but I must agree with you, that evolution is COMPLETELY contrary to Scripture.

I don't see how someone can equate the 2. Natural Selection seems Biblically feasible, but evolution has no Biblical validity whatsoever.

[forrestkc]

forrestkc

I think that God is behind evolution some how. I don't know how. I have no empirical proof, but I believe that. That is not science though.

On what evidence do you base your notion that God is "behind evolution some how"? Is this something you just pulled out of the air or have you read it in the Bible? You do realize that evolution is a secular religion designed as an alternative to Christianity - right?

Religion is based in faith. One can reason their way so far, but at some point, they must take a leap of faith. In essence, one must simply choose to believe that either God exists or does not exist.

Science is based in empirical evidence and observation. A scientist does not choose their beliefs, they arrive at them through empirical evidence and observation. A theory is not a choice, it is an acceptance of a conclusion based in empirical evidence and observation.

This is why your claim that evolution is a secular religion is absurd. Science is not a religion. It is independent of religious belief. Science only deals with the natural world. There is no way one can either prove nor disprove the existence of God, therefore, science simply does not address the issue. One can either reconcile their faith to the natural world (Faith to Creation), or they can live a life of cognitive dissonance and ignore evidence to the contrary even if it

[DarkNebulaWelder]

forrestkc

I think that God is behind evolution some how. I don't know how. I have no empirical proof, but I believe that. That is not science though.

On what evidence do you base your notion that God is "behind evolution some how"? Is this something you just pulled out of the air or have you read it in the Bible? You do realize that evolution is a secular religion designed as an alternative to Christianity - right?

Religion is based in faith. One can reason their way so far, but at some point, they must take a leap of faith. In essence, one must simply choose to believe that either God exists or does not exist.

Science is based in empirical evidence and observation. A scientist does not choose their beliefs, they arrive at them through empirical evidence and observation. A theory is not a choice, it is an acceptance of a conclusion based in empirical evidence and observation.

This is why your claim that evolution is a secular religion is absurd. Science is not a religion. It is independent of religious belief. Science only deals with the natural world. There is no way one can either prove nor disprove the existence of God, therefore, science simply does not address the issue. One can either reconcile their faith to the natural world (Faith to Creation), or they can live a life of cognitive dissonance and ignore evidence to the contrary even if it

[forrestkc]

I think his point was that evolution, like religion, is a belief system....but it is a defunct belief system, in that it STILL has not been proven. Since evolution operates in the realm of science, it should at least have some solid evidence behind it, which it does not.

As far as proving God....it WOULD be possible to DISPROVE the Biblical God by PROVING Evolution...as of yet, though, no one has been able to do this, and herein the problem lies.

If evolution IS a science, it should be able to quantify itself through physical evidence, mathematical formulas, or other means. This is TRUE science....and since science has STILL not been able to prove evolution, that just demonstrates it's fallacy as scientific fact. The proclivity to prove it has gone nowhere.

God is not a science....The postulate of God operates by faith. Science has not been able to prove OR disprove God....and it probably never will, since it can't even prove the theories that it holds so dear. How can it possibly prove the existence of God?

Are you kidding me. No proof for evolution? A scientific theory is not just someone's idea. It is a conclusion backed by evidence and observation. Evolution is regarded as one of the two foundational laws of biology. I can't think of a single major scientific theory that has more "proof" behind it than evolution. For example, I can make a trip out to the KU Museum of Natural History and see right before my very eyes, numerous examples of transitional fossils, some showing a full evolutionary transition from one species to another (evolution of the whale for example). I can also see right before my very eyes, evidence of gene flow and common genetic ancestry. One can also see right before their very eyes, examples of complete evolutionary transitions of microscopic organisms such as the Yellowstone Diatoms.

The only way evolution, or any scientific theory comes into conflict with faith is if someone actually tries to use the first two chapters of Genesis as a scientific text book.

[forrestkc]

forrestkc

A scientific theory is not just someone's idea. It is a conclusion backed by evidence and observation.

Of course theories are someone

[The Lorax]

Now, what you are doing is mixing science, philosophy, and religion. The theory of evolution could be used as a partial basis for numerous ideologies. For example, an atheist might claim that we are the result of nothing but pure chance, and then use evolution as an example of that. Yet, the majority of the world's denominations see no conflict with evolution and the Christian Faith. For example, the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans see no conflict and combined they would represent nearly 3/4ths of the world's Christians. The point is that people might use scientific knowledge to justify their ideology or beliefs, but that does not mean that scientific knowledge itself is a religion. Evolution is no more of a religion than Plate Tectonics is or the Law of Gravity is.

Well-said, forrestkc.

Most of us have learned, first-hand, how Horizoneast (and many creationists) are unable to distinguish between scientific theories (eg, the theory of evolution by natural selection) from broader, less-than-100%-scientific ideologies. He uses the two interchangeably--though they aren't--to suit his arguments. Just a heads up, in case you didn't already know.

[forrestkc]

I know exactly what the neo-atheist Dawkins believes about godless natural selection and your version of natural selection would be the same. Oh, I know you, Lorax and others throw around a little God-talk like your earlier statement,

[forrestkc]

Forrest, don't waste your time with Horizon. You'll argue in circles without him addressing valid questions, understanding basic scientific facts and reasoning, debating honestly, being able to defend HIS faith. He'll call you a Darwinist even though he can't define it, and pull a quote out of the local high school paper and claim evolution is disproved.

That was about as intellectually dishonest, or about as misinformed as it gets.

You'll be saying that alot...

1. Biology has yet to be able to fully synthesize life from organic material.

Been done already. At least one virus has been made from simple oligonucleotides. Mycoplasma is next (smallest bacterium)

Your right on that. I should have stated a single celled organism.