Creation: Micro-Evolution=Changes Within Kind

“Scientists” are just as fallible as any other human being. That aside, just to be clear, I am making this claim about anyone who practices the religion of Darwinism in general, regardless of that Darwinist’s chosen vocation.

Would you care to argue any of the numerous scientific or logical claims I have made, presumably offering facts and logic as your own premise, or is a weak ad hominem attack all I should expect?

Thank you for your comments.

I respect your opinion that my “tone” is intentionally confrontational, but I also respectfully disagree. I’ll leave it there since anything more would only lend itself to unhelpful discussion over the vagaries of referring to a person’s “tone” in this media since tone is aural and the written word is visual. Any “tone” you may or may not infer is strictly subjective on your part.

I appreciate the admission of your ignorance on many points of this debate. I, too, was woefully ignorant on many of these topics as recently as five years ago. Hopefully, I can assist in filling in a large number of gaps in your knowledge.

My first creation post is a testimony to my transformation from a Nimrod to a believer in scientific truth. Specifically, when I learned scientific truth, I had to shed any belief in Darwinism. My second creation post reviewed the history of Darwinism going all the way back to Lamarck. The third established the “culture” or the “worldview” in which Darwinists engage. It is an elitist culture, a culture of fraud, hoax, intimidation, and lies on an “ignorant” populace. My fourth post on creation dispelled the notion that Darwinism had anything to do with actual science by demonstrating the impossibilities, both mathematical and scientific, that Darwinism could occur.

This, my fifth post, set the stage for the next several posts. I intend to go in depth into the various 5 Darwinian Evolution tenets. My approach to each will be to first explore its history, then evaluate its logical merit, then evaluate its mathematical and scientific soundness, look at any supporting evidence, then explore any cultural effects. This post, the one you chose to engage in, explained that the only type of evolution which actually occurs … micro-evoution … is in reality the exact same changes within kind that is documented in scripture.

You said you are rather put off by my implication that scientists “believe” this theory. I did not say this so you inferred it. Unless I am mistaken, I limit any implications to Darwinists, whether they work as scientists or hotel maids. Of course Darwinists must “believe” the theory to be factual as a point of their faith, since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it, much like the other 4 Darwinian tenets. On it’s merit as a scientific theory, it is not explanatory or predictive of anything.

You state that gravity is the force that pulled things together. But what things? There was NOTHING. The entire theory rests on the fact that nothing existing, yet somehow gravity existed, so what did gravity act upon? Furthermore, how can gravity exist if there is no mass? How can nothingness condense? How can nothingness spin? How does friction occur in a substanceless mass of nothingness? How can nothing get hot since there is not something? How can nothing explode? What does nothing use for fuel? How does nothing transform into something? Even the equations for Big Bang are so highly theoretical that they are mathematically impossible.

If you believe all that can happen, then great! Good for you! But that is a belief that is not founded in logic, facts, evidence, or science. It amounts to faith in a religious belief.

I am not being misleading. Far from it. I am stating facts, evidence, real science, and applying logic. The theory itself makes these ridiculous assertions and operates on these unfounded and scientifically unsound premises. This is what makes it so preposterous. It needs no assistance from me to sound idiotic.

I don’t want to retread, so I will say that the next three and a half posts will be dedicated exclusively to the Big Bang theory of Cosmic Evolution (the fourth segues into stellar evolution). I will cover it’s history, it’s logical problems, and its many, many scientific problems, look into the supposedly supporting evidence, and speak to its cultural effects.

If you feel my point is to make “science” look idiotic, you have missed the point by a wide margin. Darwinism is a philosophy. It is not, strictly speaking, science. I LOVE science. I write science fiction. I read scientific articles and watch “boring” scientific documentaries. Ask my 12 year old how boring they are. I certainly want to shed light on Darwinism, because I DO feel that it is harming real science — and culture — and it is one of the most unscientific and idiotic religious beliefs in the universe. I will not hesitate to point that out.

I want to make a distinction, here, as well. Twice now you have referred to first “scientists” and then “science” as if these amounted to the ultimate authority on all collected knowledge. I want to restate that “scientist” is a vocation, it is not a morally or intellectually impregnable universal law. It is a job. Scientists are human beings, and therefore just as fallible as any human being in any other vocation. Likewise, science is also not a morally or intellectually impregnable universal law. Strictly speaking, it is an amoral methodology or discipline that involves a process which leads to a discovered or predictive result based on observations.

Neither “science” or “scientists” amount to ultimate authority on any topic. To stake a claim based on either is to engage in the fallacy of “false appeal to authority” coupled with the fallacy of “reification” in terms of science. You are giving concrete characteristics to an abstract concept. Science, as a concept, is neither good nor bad in it’s pure form, and it certainly does not possess a mind, so it would be impossible to “make science look stupid” and as a rule I do not engage in the impossible.

My initial guest post on creation served as a testimony of how the paradigm of belief shifted in my very own life. So, to answer your question of do I know anyone who practices the religion of Darwinism, the answer is certainly yes. I, personally, was an acolyte of the faith. I practiced rather dogmatic methodological naturalism and toyed with the notion of secular humanism. In my mind, there existed a division between so-called scientific “facts” and my Christian religious “faith”. This belief resulted in a compromised worldview. When I started having doubts, and actual scientific facts only confirmed my doubts over and over again, I left the Darwinian fold.

There are other, far more famous members of the church of Darwin. Richard Dawkins comes to mind, the late Steven J. Gould, the late Isaac Asimov, Kenneth R. Miller, certainly Eugenia Scott, and certainly every sitting member on the board of the ACLU.

Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature and the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. When they die, they die forever and rot in the dirt. Ethically, therefore, they are by and large moral relativists. Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural process. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in Darwinian evolution.

To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists’ main vehicle for the propagation of their faith — free public education as advocated by Marx. The Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488). Since then, numerous groups in the US, mainly Christian groups, have challenged the “preaching and teaching” of secular humanist doctrine (Darwinism) in schools under the establishment clause. This has caused Darwinists, in the last 20 years, to completely reverse their position that secular humanism is a religion and refer to it only as “science” just as you do in your remarks.

I am not dismissing the outstanding challenges you pose in your comment. Many of your questions with respect to the other 5 tenets of Darwinian evolution will be answered at length and in some detail in future posts. I intend to dedicate about 3 posts to each, though I suspect the biological macro-evolution information could take quite a bit more if I dispel each and every fraudulent hoax before laying down the argument.

Again, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to reading more.

Thank you for asking. You appear to argue two points.

Your first point is an example of cherry picking, which is a fallacy. In debate, you cannot restrict your opponent to only argue using references that tend to support your side of the debate. As much as we would like that, because we all like to appear to be right, the whole point of debate is to get at the truth and the fact is that we are fallible humans and often wrong. The entire field, therefore, is open and ought to be open, for discussion. I apologize that various intelligent people successfully refuted your belief decades or centuries ago, but those refutations should not be ignored simply because they are old. If it makes “no sense” to refer to Mendel other than in a “historical” sense, then why does it make perfect sense to refer to Darwin? That is cherry picking at it’s finest.

Also, to discard the lessons of the past is to presently bathe in ignorance. Does it make sense to refer to Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur? How about the even more ancient Socrates, Aristotle, or Josephus? To forget ancient truth turns us into mindless creatures that blink and think it’s a brand new day. Speaking for myself, I cannot turn off my intellect on that scale.

In short, your first point is fallacious on at least two fronts and without merit on its face. Don’t misunderstand me. I appreciate the question. And to answer the question directly, I can refer to Mendel in 2010 or 2020 or 4092, for that matter, provided Mendel’s point remains arguably valid. Whether the point is brand new or hundreds of years old has absolutely no bearing on it’s validity. I note that you do not dispute its validity, only its birthday, which — to speak with candor — is rather a weak position to take in a debate.

As to your second point, genetic barriers between kinds exist. Bright three year olds, for example, recognize that cats and dogs cannot get together and bring forth kuppies and pittens.

To posit that genetic barriers “may not” have existed at some time in the distant past immediately begs the question. I would not beg the question by asking, “Because God exists, and scripture is true, wouldn’t you agree that…?” In your case, the question isn’t “Because Darwin was right, wouldn’t you agree that genetic barriers may not have existed at some time in the distant past?” The question, in my mind, is the preceding question which I would frame like, “Wouldn’t you agree that Darwin was dead wrong?” If he is, as I believe, dead wrong, then the remaining antecedent question could hardly be more irrelevant.

Additionally, to posit that genetic barriers “may not” have existed at some time in the distant past is what is commonly known as an argument from ignorance, which is a fairly common fallacy in this debate. It also attempts to shift the burden of proof, another fallacy, and one which I generally do not entertain.

For example, I would not declare, “God exists! Now prove me wrong!” This is classic begging the question and shifting the burden of proof in an argument from ignorance.

Simply put, if you want to suggest that genetic barriers didn’t exist in some imaginary reality long ago and far away — all in accordance with the Darwinian creation myth — then it is up to you to prove such a laughable notion. It is not up to anyone else to disprove it. It is incumbent upon you to provide something — anything really — resembling evidence, observation, logic, or fact that supports your belief. It is not the responsibility of your opponent to bring evidence, observation, logic, or fact to disprove your belief when you are “ignorant” of anything that proves it in the first place. You didn’t bring any proof to the table outside of ignorance of refutation and a well begged question.

However, since it may ultimately be instructive and helpful to disprove your belief, I shall entertain it in this case.

Let’s ASSUME your point has some validity. In that case, we must ASSUME that the survival of the fittest imperative and natural selection methodologies (that unintelligent, undirected, random processes have the ability to select, plan, and execute) are sound. Let’s further ASSUME, for example, that ancient horses and ancient dogs could have 1) somehow overcome their mechanical issues, 2) decided they liked each other enough to breed, 3) decided that breeding would somehow benefit them in terms of fitness, and 4) successfully interbred and produced progeny. I must say, that is one whopping huge assumption.

So, okay, they each must have had FAR MORE genetic information than either modern horses and dogs actually have in order to bring forth progeny (e.g: be genetically compatible enough to produce offspring). While such a notion is somewhat sound based on your gigantically unbelievable ASSUMPTION, it runs counter to the entire Darwinian theory which states that life began in “some warm little pond” as tiny “simple lower life forms” with just a few randomly formed amino acids and that life is “evolving” into more and more grand and lofty and “highly evolved” beings with more and more dense information packed into our genetic code. The implication is that living things retain ALL beneficial genetic information and over vast amounts of time discard any vestigial information that is not directly beneficial for survival — all in accordance with “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” to conclude this Just-So story.

It follows that the ability to cross genetic barriers would certainly be beneficial. Definitely a trait worth keeping. It follows that if this trait existed between ancient life forms, that there is no “evolutionary” benefit to discarding it. Why was it not kept, then? Why is it NEVER observed in ANY of the millions of observed modern day species?

The assumption also introduces further very real problems into the Darwinian framework such as: Where did all that original information that is now mysteriously lost to the ages come from in the first place? While order can sometimes rise from undirected processes, order does not constitute information. Order cannot organize beyond simple structures such as bubbles and crystals. It is a proven fact that — in accordance with known universal laws — randomness cannot generate information such as the incredibly dense information in a single genome and the vastly and irreducibly complex structures and processes that exist in place all around said information that intelligently decodes and leverages that information and does so with all with highly refined efficiency observed in all of the processes of life as we know it.

The fact is that randomness can only generate more randomness. It takes intelligence to create information. That truth is what put Darwinism as a theory in crisis over 40 years ago and is the very truth that dedicated Darwinists are fervently battling to this very day.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that genetic barriers ever did NOT exist at any time in the past, that they do NOT exist today (they do), or that they will somehow magically NOT exist at some future date. Modern horses cannot cross breed with anything but other kinds of horses. What evidence is there to suggest that ancient horses had that ability? There is none. Modern bananas cannot cross pollinate with any type of plant other than some kind of banana. What evidence is there that ancient bananas could? There is none. Here’s some genetic knowledge we have gained since Mendel (and Darwin). The “simple lower life form” that is the modern fern has over 900 chromosomes — literally hundreds more than human beings — yet ferns can only ever cross-breed with other kinds of ferns and produce, as a result, some kind of fern. What evidence is there that ancient, modern, or future ferns could cross-pollinate with ANY other types of plants? Right. There is none.

Bottom line. What evidence is there to suggest that ANY life form could EVER cross the genetic barriers that separate kinds? There IS NONE.

In conclusion, I find your second point unsupported by logic, evidence, observation, facts, or even the framework of the Darwinian theory itself even though you purportedly believe it to be true. The only thing that supports your belief is hope – a personal hope that Darwin was right — and hope is never a strategy for success.

The truth is that one would have to believe with a religious fervor burning deep down in one’s belly with the institutional and abiding conviction that only ever arises as a result of blind faith that at some time in a fictitious and purely imaginary place that somehow existed both long ago and far away in which the laws of the universe could be manipulated and/or put on hold — only there might such things be possible. Of course, these beliefs stand in stark defiance to present observable reality, all evidence to the contrary, and simple logic; but one must discard all those things in order for these suppositions to be believed. Even so, those suppositions only appear valid in one’s highly biased heart and very closed mind. The belief would still not have any bearing on actual reality, science, or logic. It would simply represent a single tenet of one’s secular faith.

Thank you for your questions. I honestly appreciate you taking the time to read my post and argue your points. Please visit often and comment even more often.

Allow me to beg the question of my beliefs by offering a sincere prayer for you that the Creator of the universe makes Himself real to you as He did for me.

Gregg

Oh, gosh. I’m sorry your so confused. I will try to clear up your confusion.

Neither one is possible.

There.

Very well. If that is not your position, then we essentially are in agreement. What exactly is it that you are attempting to take exception to? Is it simply the fact that I mentioned Mendel’s work? So what? Why quibble. Neither Mendel nor his work form the basis or foundation of my argument. He and his work only support the larger argument — which we apparently agree upon. If, as you say, Mendel’s experiments don’t address my points, then why don’t you address my points without chasing rhetorical rabbits?

The summations of my points are that 1) so-called micro-evolution is not Darwinian evolution, but rather simply modifications within kind and 2) so-called macro-evolution has never occurred because it does not occur and, biologically, cannot occur today. In all of human history, there is not even one single case of macro-evolution that has not been shown to be utterly fraudulent. You can easily prove me utterly and completely wrong by citing one verifiable instance of macro-evolution having taken place.