Creation: We Interrupt this Series…
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of Creationism vs. Darwinism, a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
A Darwinian Primer
The 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution, and the last being simple modifications or changes within kind and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Macro-evolution
- Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)
The Great Church of Darwin
I began a series on Darwinist frauds a few months back. I apologize for the interruption. A recent comment made it clear to me that I had not covered my reasons for calling Darwinism a religion in quite enough detail. I will summarize those reasons here, for the record, and then continue the series of “Pious Frauds” committed by the Darwinian faithful.
A Darwinian Statement of Faith
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted religion to mean “a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies, in the life of its possessor, a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons.” The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in The Big Bang, that absolutely nothing condensed, then all of the condensed nothing exploded into an environment of even more nothing, that the shrapnel of the nothing that exploded defied the laws of motion and thermodynamics and became absolutely everything. This has nothing to do with science since science refutes this entirely.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Stellar Evolution, that gases created from nothing defied the laws of motion and thermodynamics to condense into stars. This also has nothing to do with science or facts since science and facts entirely refute this as well.
Faithful Darwinists once religiously believed in infinity until too many people with common sense handily refuted it. Therefore, faithful Darwinists religiously now believe in billions of years, as many billions as possible.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Hubble “Constant” is supposed to be used in any calculation as a “Variable.” Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in re-naming it the Hubble Variable, but to continue to inaccurately refer to it as a Constant so as to avoid any confusion. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the value of the Hubble Constant can vary even within the same equation provided the end result ultimately supports Darwinism and does not refute it. This is not a scientific belief, nor good mathematics.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Chemical Evolution, that newborn stars can fuse elements heavier than iron.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Earth evolved out of a molten state. Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in Polonium Halos even though they patently exist.
Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe that the moon is less than 10,000 years old.
Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe that the sun is less than 1 million years old.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Generation, Life from Non-Life, and Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in mathematical impossibilities as they relate to this article of faith. This is not scientific. Science predicts that we should be able to recreate this spontaneous generation event given the right materials and conditions. It isn’t happening, folks.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in the theory of recapitulation, formerly and erroneously called the biogenetic “law,” also known as embryological parallelism, and often expressed as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” and Faithful Darwinists religiously believe it is right to ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief. This is, obviously, not scientific.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Larmarckism, and that Lamarck’s notion of “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” is the philosophical basis of all biological Darwinian evolution and they believe it is right to ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief until a “better” explanation comes along. This is stubborn faith.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that every Scientific Dating method that supports millions or billions of years is absolutely accurate down to the minute and second. Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe any dating methods to be even slightly accurate when those methods do not support millions or billions of years. When the same method supports billions of years and refutes it in equivalent tests, the former is embraced as perfectly accurate and the latter is assumed to be a lab error.
Faithful Darwinists also religiously do not believe in the validity of Archaeological Dating when Archaeological Dating contradicts Darwinism.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that continents are highly mutable things. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in “Pangaea,” and that the continent of Africa was once 40% smaller while remaining in exact proportion to its current shape, and that Central America did not exist in the Pangea world, and that all other continents fit together with it like a jigsaw puzzle until they drifted apart — like giant lily pads floating on a big lake – after which Central America mysteriously appeared by means of a yet unknown but somehow still perfectly reasonable natural process — and that Africa increased in size by a full 40% while remaining in exact proportion to its current shape by means of another yet unknown but somehow still perfectly reasonable natural process. Hardly science. More like a fanatical faith.
I assume that faithful Darwinists religiously believe that DNA, RNA, Proteins, Amino Acids, and every part of any living cell are remarkably simple and uncomplicated structures that could easily produce themselves out of dirt or mud or some other base elements entirely by random chance. This seems foundational to Darwinism yet is hardly science.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that Natural Selection causes changes across every species and that, though this may appear directed or designed, it is purely random. Since science is also observable, this is not science.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that Mutations are mostly benign or benevolent and can produce entirely new, never before seen species even though such a thing has never been observed.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the genetic species barrier common to every Animal and Plant in the known universe can easily be broken by any undirected and random process. That is pure belief in slim hope.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in the Geologic Column and in index fossils. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in strata. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the strata is an excellent way to judge the age of the index fossils they contain and that the index fossils are an excellent way to judge the age of the strata in which they appear. That is circular reasoning at it’s finest and far from scientific.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any and all evidence that could support Darwinism in even the most remote and infinitesimal way does, in point of fact, fully support Darwinism and only Darwinism. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any and all evidence that could contradict Darwinism also (somehow) supports Darwinism. In short, faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any evidence at all supports Darwinism. That is dogma, not science.
When it is convenient, faithful Darwinists are given dispensation to believe in the directed process referred to as punctuated equilibrium but always refer to it as an undirected process so as to avoid any confusion.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe humans evolved from more primitive species. There is no evidence to support this and there are mountains of evidence that refutes this. The former is embraced, the latter is ignored or dismissed on the slimmest of excuses while fraud is accepted as par for the course. This is a side-show at a cheap carnival and not scientific at all.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe there was never a world wide flood. This ignores the evidence and is therefore not scientific.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that similar structures, homologies, are an evidence of evolution, and not evidence of clever design. That is cherry picking and not scientific.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Vestiges, useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms, and do not accept the notion of elegant design.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the best examples of Darwinian evolution have proven salient, cogent, sound, and not at all fraudulent or worthless. That is religious fervor.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Laws of Nature are completely random, not fine-tuned at all, not Anthropic, and do not directly oppose “Darwinetics.”
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in the dogma of Methodological Naturalism in the context of Secular Humanism.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that Darwinism when practiced as a religion has no effect whatsoever on culture, morality, promiscuity, deviant sexual behavior, violent behavior, individual feelings of self-worth, or judgements about purpose.
When sanctioned by government, faithful Darwinists religiously believe in fanatically defending the Darwinism and fellow Darwinists — often by punishing non-believers by means of from most to least effective: mass murder, individual murder, kidnap, torture, and slavery.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that in the event less effective methods are available to defend Darwinism, they are granted dispensation to commit: fraud, hoax, misrepresentation, production of artificial evidence, falsely cite studies, manufacture evidence, call unqualified witnesses, engage in character assassination, fallacy, mendacity, misdirection, theft, false appeal to authority, false appeal to majority, false dilemma, and any and all other falsehoods which can be leveraged.
In defending the Darwinists faith, dispensation is granted to disobey logic, the laws of thought, and common courtesy.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in very carefully selecting only the data that supports Darwinian beliefs, ignoring facts and evidence that directly contradict the faith, and punishing anyone who disagrees with those beliefs.
As a point of doctrine, faithful Darwinists religiously believe in punishing anyone who introduces any contradictory facts or evidence into any public arena, especially schools. The preferred methods of punishment are firing, suing or threatening to file suit, denying tenure, removing funding, marginalizing, and mocking or making threats toward those ends.
For this and a host of other reasons, Darwinism is — in my opinion — what the Supreme Court would define as a legal religion.
The Truth
Creationism is a belief system which postulates that the universe, Earth, and life on Earth were deliberately created by an intelligent being, namely God.
In short, it is my belief that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena, up to and including the existence of intelligent life itself. This is a belief that is shared by many rational scientists and many, many people throughout history and around the globe today.
My personal position has a deep rooted foundation in scripture found in the Bible, God’s holy word, which is relied upon for insights regarding the history of the world by secularists and believers alike.
Any reasonable observer will understand that this is not merely a dogmatic belief on my part, nor one that is outside the boundaries of logic or reason, given that the authority of scripture is a fundamental assumption on my part. And, based upon my beliefs — beliefs that are shared by countless others — I have reached a few conclusions about truth.
The truth is that we are all created from one blood, all nations of men. We were placed here not as a mathematically impossible random act, but as an act of will by a supreme being.
Believers need to understand that much of what is recognized as “science” today is “falsely so-called” and amounts to assumptions based on misleading lies, outright frauds, or unworthy (godless) assumptions. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7). It would be wise to take the advice Paul offered to Timothy and “…keep that which is committed to thy trust [see Timothy 6:14], avoiding profane and vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20–21, KJV).
This is more than a scientific debate. This is a religious debate between believers in clashing world-views.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
That does work as a post.
But you didn’t even checck on my comment about Lamarck’s ideas before reposting?
Srsly, you are completely wrong on that. It makes your view of evolution seem uninformed.
I covered my “ignorance” with respect to Lamarkism in a previous post.
Hi Gregg,
.
You wrote:
“Faithful Darwinists once religiously believed in infinity until too many people with common sense handily refuted it. Therefore, faithful Darwinists religiously now believe in billions of years, as many billions as possible.”
.
Science doesn’t work on the basis of common sense (i.e. what we think we know already). Instead it’s based on evidence. So scientists changed their minds to fit with the evidence. This is quite the opposite of what happens in religions where people take entrenched positions and refuse to change them no matter how much evidence is given to them, instead tending to interpret the evidence to fit their pre-existing world-view.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Not true, I’m afraid. Before Isreal became a nation again, religous groups often “interpreted” the “nation of Isreal” described in scripture as metaphorical.
.
There was never any evidence that a solid state universe existed, nor was there any evidence of a perpetually renewing universe ala Hoyle. Today, there is very little evidence to support Big Bang. In fact, the 6 main predictions of Big Bang have been found to be wrong. All six. Therefore, religious belief in any of those models is pure faith, not based on evidence, and not science.
.
The advantage that the solid state and perpetually renewing universe models held, for Darwinists, was the possibility of infinity — thus infinite TIME was allowed in which the infinitesimal possibility that life could somehow accidentally spring forth from non-life as a random act of chance could at least be allowed on the table jumping the hurdle of TOTAL mathematical impossibility. That is no longer an option. So, as many BILLIONS OF YEARS as possible are figured in order to reduce the mathematical impossibility down to a “manageably” impossible ratio.
.
So, we are to believe the odds against Big Bang, Stellar Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Abiogenesis — while REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY unlikely (mathematically impossible compounded and compounded and exponentially compounded) — are still somehow POSSIBLE.
.
It’s kind of dogmatic, really. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding with respect to my intended meaning.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Whether Darwinists fanatics admit it or not, Darwinism is religion in every aspect of the word. I read articles all of the time from science journals saying things like (well…that part we thought was junk DNA, turned out to be useful after all; secular geologists finally admitting almost every canyon was created rapidly (however they still refuse to give up the Grand Canyon); everything we thought we knew is completely wrong; well it might; or we think; it could have been; maybe it happened like; by some miracle; etc…; etc…; etc….). That (evolution) is not science, it is conjecture, which makes it a religion.
Biomimetics is a field in itself that is destroying Darwinism on its own. Very rarely do you see any mention of evolution, and when you do it has nothing to do with the paper. It’s all a show, and it’s refreshing to see more people like yourself showing the faulty teachings that have gone on long enough.
On another note:
It should tell everyone something when you see Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc..) spending their entire life writing about evolution and something they don’t even believe in (God). If I was an atheist, the last thing I would do is waste what little life I had writing about something I don’t even believe in, and don’t give me the “better for mankind” argument (that is a joke).
God Bless,
JW
That post is not useful. You create a strw man view of evolution and equate it to Lamarck’s views. But your description of evoultion in that post is not the actual view of evolutionary biologists, so it is incorrect to say that Lamarckiansim is a ‘belief’ of biologists. It is especially incorrect since lamarck’s views have been disdained for years – that paragraph doesn’t make sense.
And the paragraph about how you “assume that faithful Darwinists religiously believe that DNA, RNA, Proteins, Amino Acids, and every part of any living cell are ‘remarkably simple and uncomplicated structures’ that could easily produce themselves out of dirt or mud or some other base elements entirely by random chance” is pure hype. Come on – you know that no biologist thinks DNA and proteins are remarkably simple and uncomplicated’ and you know they don’t think they could ‘easily’ produce themselves. This is not what biologists say; you are misrepresenting the facts to your readers. Why?
I don’t know about straw man. It wasn’t my intent. I hope you can understand and perhaps even concede that certain generalizations are unavoidable when one generalizes, as I have done here.
.
I reread and still do not see that I ever claim that “biologists” specifically believe these things. I see where I claim — or claim to assume — that “Darwinists” believe these things as part of their religious doctrine. I stand by that.
.
Now, while Darwinists may vary on points of doctrine within their religion, just as Baptists and Catholics diverge on certain doctrinal points within Christianity, I believe that the basic foundation of the Darwinian faith is well explained by this post. I hope it is understood that while not every Darwinist is a racist, many were and many are. While not every Darwinist is Malthusian or Nietzschian, most Nazi’s were and many modern Darwinists are.
.
Is it your position that there is not one single modern biologist who leans toward Lamarkism? That is a fairly broad claim if that is the case.
.
I’m sorry you do not find this post useful, hd.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Okay, then I am unclear what you mean by Darwinists. i have assumed you meant either evolutionary biologists, all life science researchers, all scientists or all people in general who think that biological evolution is a reasonable., well-supported sound explanation for the origin of all the current life-forms on earth from some line of single-celled organisms.
Since biological evolution is the current consensus in the biological sciences, this includes almost all biologists and almost all scientists in general.
.
(And when you talk about faithful Darwinists, are all Darwinists according to your definition faithful Darwinists, or are the faithful Darwinists a subset of the Darwinists?)
.
It seems that there are always a few outliers in any group, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that there any professional biologists who lean towards Lamarck’s original view. It seems like it would be almost unthinkable, given what we know now about inheritance, information which Lamarck didn’t have. (I mentioned epigenetics, but I see that as a different idea from what Lamarck proposed, a new development.)
.
Really, I can’t imagine what group of people you are talking about when you describe ‘faithful Darwinists’ as clinging to Lamarck’s ideas. Who are you talking about in particular here?
.
(When I said that post wasn’t helpful I meant the post you linked to, about the deer with a long neck.)
A fanatical Darwinist who believes every tenet of Darwinism from Big Bang to macro-evolution and puts their entire faith in randomness would be someone like Richard Dawkins, or the late Carl Sagan, or my daughter’s middle school science teacher who went on a pilgramage to Darwin’s home last summer.
.
Today, I believe that Lamarckism serves as the unstated philosophical basis of all Darwinian evolutionary biology. While admittedly lacking in either proof or reason, Lamarckism conveniently excuses Darwinists from contemplating the possibility that nature espouses implications outside of Methodological Naturalism. And that notion, if entertained, could very possibly lead one of the Darwinist faithful to a different worldview outside of secular humanism.
.
While publically decrying Lamarkism as nonsense, Lamarkism is what Darwinists preach every single day in our public schools. Just as Lamark’s deer dreamed of a long neck and on the strength of that dream it “evolved” into a giraffe — we are taught that a fish decided that it was no longer content to live in a water environment for which it was perfectly suited. Instead, the fish thought it would be a good idea to breath air and walk around on its flippers. It had a dream, you see, did our noble fish.
.
And the fairy tale continues until the fish grow feet and lose their scales and turn into birds and apes and what not. Oh, and the apes dream of opposable thumbs and of walking upright on the ground, but only some of them do while others remain, inexplicably, apes. This, in spite of the clear evolutionary advantage offered by thumbs, upright bearing, the ability to reason, and so forth.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
I can’t see a place to reply to your comment, so I’m replying here.
You said this:
” Just as Lamark’s deer dreamed of a long neck and on the strength of that dream it “evolved” into a giraffe — we are taught that a fish decided that it was no longer content to live in a water environment for which it was perfectly suited. Instead, the fish thought it would be a good idea to breath air and walk around on its flippers. It had a dream, you see, did our noble fish.”
.
This is the part that I see as a straw man argument. The concept of evolution includes absolutely no thinking, dreaming, or deciding on the part of the deer and the fish. Neither was there any deer dreaming in Lamarck’s ideas. I still don’t see why you bring Lamarck into it.
I don’t see a difference between what you say about a fanatical Darwinist and between almost any biologist or other scientist today.
How have you worked out having your daughter in a middle school science classroom?
I’ve read on Answers in Genesis about one approach for kids who have learned creationist ideas at home, as your daughter has, and then go to a public school where the current ideas of science are taught. I think their suggestion is basically to learn what current biology and astronomy and physics etc. teaches and be able to explain it on tests, while keeping in mind that it is in conflict with what they have learned at home. That is, AIG says it’s okay not to make it into a confrontation. (I very much dislike the AIG website but I think that is reasonable advice for kids who are in this kind of conflict. And of course I think the middle school teacher is probably teaching just what he should teach.)
You see it as a straw man argument, yet what is the driving force for a fish to hop up out of the water and draw a lung full of air? There isn’t one. What is the biological imperative for a fish to walk around on it’s flippers so they can “evolve” into feet? There isn’t one. There is no effect without a cause. What is the cause? Without a strong biological imperative or driving force, what are we left with as the cause for the effect other than the fish hoping and dreaming? Which of course is a metaphor for Darwinists who pin their hopes and dreams on sensible folks buying the fairytale.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
My daughter experiences no conflict between the “current ideas of science” and the truth.
.
She fairly handily identifies when her teacher rails against religion, mocks Christians, and spouts Darwinist nonsense and isolates that from actual truth and actual science.
.
When tested, she provides truthful answers to the best of her ability. For example, she had to write a paper on the origin of the moon and truthfully stated that no one can say how old the moon is.
.
Why are you bringing my family into your comments? I’m just curious.
Why did I ask? Human interest. You brought your family into the comments when you mentioned your daughter’s teacher. I wondered how you were handling the situation. It’s obvious that there would be a conflict between your views and the standard curriculum in public schools.
“what is the driving force for a fish to hop up out of the water and draw a lung full of air?”
There are fish right now who get oxygen from the air. There is obviously a benefit for them to do so. These fish might live in a habitat where there is an advantage to being able to get oxygen from the air as well as through their gills at different times due to the water quality or depth. There are trade-offs in habitats. A fish in one habitat might have less oxygen in the water but increased safety from predators or increased food supply in that habitat compared to one with better oxygen supply. According to evolutionary biology, adaptation to getting oxygen from air would be the result of a series of mutations in the population or species. There is competition between all the offspring of one population of a species for the good habitat and food. there is competition between species for the habitat and food.
So when you said this:
“Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Larmarckism, and that Lamarck’s notion of “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” is the philosophical basis of all biological Darwinian evolution and they believe it is right to ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief until a “better” explanation comes along. This is stubborn faith.”
it seems to me that you weren’t talking literally and precisely but you were using some kind of rhetorical technique. You know that ‘Darwinists’ do not literally think that that Larmarck’s ideas were correct, and you know they do not literally think that Lamrack’s idea is the philosophical basis of ‘all biological Darwinian evolution’. Those things are not literally true, and you know they aren’t true. And since they do not think Lamrack’s ideas are correct, of course they ‘ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief”. Again, what you say is not literally true; it is literally incorrect. Further, although the idea of acquired characteristics has been rejected for years, when the phenomenon of epigenetics was discovered, biologists began to reconsider the idea of inheritance of environmentally induced effects. So right there is an example of biologists not ‘ignoring all scientific evidence’.
There is nothing in that paragraph that is literally true, or that correctly represents the thinking of biologists (to the extent that biologists fit into your ‘faithful Darwinist’ category, and biologists would include Dawkins, your example of a faithful Darwinist), and it seems from what you have said that you know that.
So the bottom line is that you find the idea of evolution by an accumulation of mutations, acted on by natural selection (as well as things like drift)
No. I brought my daughter’s TEACHER into the comments. You brought my daughter into them.
If you say so.
entered that too soon.
So you think the basis of evolution as concluded by evolutionary biologists is not logical or reasonbale to you. So you think the biologists must not be thinking logically or reasonably since they don’t see things the way you see them. You presnet what you see as the only explanation for their thinking since you reject their explanations. And your proposed explanations are impossible, ridiculous and silly. But the biologists don’t actually believe in the impossible things you say they believe in. You may think their explanations are wroing, and maybe they will even turn out to be wrong. But that doesn’t mean they believe in your claims about Lamarck and dreaming fish. To say they do, even sarcastically, is to misrepresent what they think, unless you specifically include a comment that this seems to you the logical comclusion of their explanations.
You may think mutations can’t possibly explain anything. But that doesn’t mean you can legitimately claim that biologists believe in dreaming fish instead of mutations.
If you say so.
It was a friendly but thoughtless question.
You could delete both the question and your answer if you wanted to.
I can’t let this go. If there is obviously a benefit for fish to draw breath from the air — say protection from predators — then why wouldn’t the predators “evolve” that same ability? Heck, why not all fish?
.
Without the immediate begging of the question by assuming that Darwinian evolution is true, the argument does not hold water, if you can pardon the pun.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
In an amendment to my previous reply — I am a truthful person. You asked. I answered as truthfully as I could.
.
I think mature human beings can separate personal opinions (as expressed in my answer) from hard facts.
.
Perhaps you could explain what the unspoken philosophical justification is to believe that a universe can form out of nothing, that gas can condense in a vacuum, that heavier elements can form out of hydrogen and helium, that rocks can turn into living things, that “simple” single celled organisms can develop into more and more complex organisms in more and more diverse environments, and so on — without falling back on Lamarkism.
.
In my opinion, it is all based much more on a philosophy that has much more to do with Lamarkism than evidence.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
‘Not true, I’m afraid. Before Isreal became a nation again, religous groups often “interpreted” the “nation of Isreal” described in scripture as metaphorical.’
This would be a very strange belief system. The Biblical history of Israel is confirmed (in general terms) by cuneiform tablets from other civilisations which lived in the area. With that kind of evidence it’s hard to claim that Biblical Israel was pure metaphor. But then this group changed their minds just because modern Israel had been established? That makes no sense. What does the existence of modern Israel tell you about the existence (or not) of ancient Israel?
In your original post, you attribute various views to physicists and evolutionary biologists. I was wondering why you think that those views are widely held. Have you had conversations with people who believe in evolution, where they confirmed that they held those views?
I am particularly surprised by the suggestion that atheists want to kill off religious believers. Yes I know historically it has been done (non-religion has been used as an excuse for murder, just as religion has). However, I know many atheists personally, and I can confirm that none of them want to kill believers. It’s not just that it’s against the law, they really don’t want to.
It would be like an atheist posting here, and saying, ‘Christianity is evil because of the Inquisition!’ You then try to explain that the Inquisition was a long time ago, and you (presumably) don’t agree with that sort of thing anyway. But this hypothetical atheist isn’t really listening. His favourite atheist website said that Christians support the Inquisition, and he isn’t going to let anyone tell him differently. Certainly he isn’t going to let a Christian tell him anything, because Christians are evil on account of the Inquisition. :-)
I’m sure you didn’t have my context and I am sorry I wasn’t clear.
.
In the modern world, the “Nation of Israel” didn’t exist until just after WWII. Therefore, where ever the Nation of Israel was referred to in scripture in a prophetic sense, it was often interpreted in a metaphorical sense, as in “This is referring to the world wide church” instead of in the literal sense. I hope this better explains what I meant.
.
I appreciate your comment but I confess the cherry picking is interesting. As in “Oh, yeah. The universe came from nothing. That sound reasonable. Life sprung from nothing at all. That sounds right. Oh, but what’s this about Nazis!”
.
God Bless,
Gregg
“If there is obviously a benefit for fish to draw breath from the air — say protection from predators — then why wouldn’t the predators “evolve” that same ability? Heck, why not all fish?
.
Not all fish populations and species would have had the accumulation of random mutations which resulted in the abilities to get oxygen from the air.
If some other fish populations did accumulate some mutations but were not benefited by them, the mutations might have not been preserved in those populations over time. For example deep-water fish which would not spend time at the surface would not have any immediate benefit.
Mutations could have happened in predator as well as prey species – any species. Whether mutations did occur in accumulations that were useful would have been random chance. But they could have happened. If a prey species (through mutations over time) acquired the ability to avoid a predator, for instance by surviving better in shallower murky water where it was harder to get enough oxygen through the gills (perhaps by taking mouthfuls of air and absorbing some oxygen through the mouth or gut membranes), then the fact that a prey species – food – was now available in that shallow murky water would have provided an advantage to any predator species which acquired mutations which allowed it to hunt in that murky water. So a change in one species over time would have changed the environment or habitat in which some other species existed, changing the role of natural selection on any mutations which would have enhanced a predator species’s survival or hunting abilities in the shallow water. This is the kind of thing described by the idea of co-evolution. (And there are other hypothetical chains of events that I haven’t mentioned here.)
.
The difference between types of fish etc. is a difference in genomes. Mutations happen. Mutations change the genome. The question I imagine you might raise is whether mutations can occur to make those changes and what the probability is of their happening. I think as more genomes are sequenced and compared, there will be more specific information.
might have could have might have If might could possibly might could random chance…
.
I’m sorry but, that’s just not a fact based argument. That is a faith based argument.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant about Israel. Actually I’d be interested in hearing more about that. I’ve heard about people who see modern Israel as fulfilling certain prophesies, but I don’t know any more detail. It’s quite interesting; I’m British and I get the feeling that this belief is mainly an American one. There are probably exceptions, but I think if you asked most Christians here about it, you would only get blank looks!
Yes of course I cherry-picked. We can talk about the other things later, but I thought I should reassure you first that I don’t want you to come to any harm, and nor do any other unbelievers that I know. We can have a more relaxed discussion that way. :-) I also think the world would be a less interesting place if everyone believed the same thing.
I know that people have killed in the name of both Christianity and atheism. I also know that virtually all Christians would reject violence carried out in the name of their religion. Can you see that this is true for atheists too? I don’t know of any atheists who support Stalin’s purges.
What do you think would happen if you asked God to leave you alone for a week? Without God’s support, would you feel tempted to hurt the people around you? That isn’t the experience of most atheists, so I suspect it wouldn’t be your experience either. We don’t walk down the street, tempted to take from one person after another. Yes we feel temptation but it is an occasional thing, just as I think it would be for Christians. Like Christians, sometimes we give in to temptation and sometimes we don’t.
I’ll go and read your new post now.
One thing you need to remember is that when I post something it comes from my limited knowledge, what I’ve read recently, and what I’ve managed to remember, and it may not be expressed well or correctly.
Without a time machine, we will never know exactly what happened in the past. We only have fossil traces and the information we can get from living organisms. It’s rare and difficult to find those fossils, they can be incomplete, not show the soft body parts, and we won’t be able to get DNA from them. But they have found a few, and the newest one, Tiktaalik, is a good example of a transitional fossil. There’s no way to go back and say, yes this is the exact species which was the ancestor of the tetrapod line, or to say yes this exact fossil fish gave birth to a fish which was an ancestor of the fossil line. Not possible. (Also, even if we had a complete series of ancestral fish species, one right after the other, you could still claim they were separately created – it is impossible to rule out supernatural creation of anything at any time, including that we were all created, memories intact, last week.) But Tiktaalik shows a bone structure which has features of both fish and tetrapods. For people who reject that as an example of a transitional fossil, I’d have to guess that there is no fossil form that they could ever accept as being translational – they have defined transitional fossils in a way that is unrelated to what could actually exist.
We can compare structures and DNA from living creatures which are assumed to have descended from those ancient life forms. This is the best evidence we have, but it also is incomplete because for all those years mutations have been modifying the sequences. Despite that, the DNA is very informative.
Also we can compare the processes in living creatures now. We may not see the exact transition in a fish species now that we think happened millions of years ago – there is not enough time for the odds of that series of mutations to happen. But we can see how the process happens. There’s some work on stickleback mutation and change in their spine structure, for example.
So while we can’t fill in every step, we have a basis of evidence for the ideas. They aren’t made up out of nothing. They are based on different lines of observable evidence.
Hi Gregg,
.
Who’s to say whether the universe coming out of nothing is reasonable? Of course nobody’s seen it happen. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. We don’t see matter being created out of pure energy every day, but it happens at the various particle accelerators which we have around the world. There are other candidate explanations on the table. Perhaps the observable universe is an expanding bubble in a larger section of universe which has always existed. Perhaps the universe undergoes expansion and then collapse. When it collapses, it might get to such a high pressure that it causes another explosion. Another possibility is that there’s a super-intelligent being who has always existed and who created the universe out of nothing. All of these explanations are speculative. Which ones you see as reasonable is just a matter of opinion.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Hi Neil,
.
I, for one, am perfectly comfortable in saying everything cannot come out of nothing and that — to posit that it may have been so — is unreasonable.
.
“Nothing” is not energy. Nothing is not matter. Nothing is NOTHING. Nothing is the absence of anything at all. Only nothing comes from nothing.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
It’s unreasonable in your opinion. Only nothing comes from nothing, in your opinion. Those opinions are not shared by everyone.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
My opinion is backed up by a rather large amount of evidence. A contrary opinion is supported by nothing in this case.
Hi Gregg,
.
The beginning of the universe was a singular event in history. We might expect things to have happened back then which haven’t happened since. Theoretical physicists working on this type of hypothesis have come up with a mathematical model of the universe which is consistent with the universe coming from nothing. It is also consistent with the fact that in our everyday lives we don’t see things coming from nothing. Perhaps this is how the universe started. We don’t know. At least it’s one of the possibilities.
.
I admit that this model isn’t supported by evidence which is why I described it as a possibility rather than a fact.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Hi Gregg,
.
I’m curious. What do you think the six main predictions of the big bang were and in what way were they wrong?
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Your comment reinforces my opinion that Big Bang is pure faith not supported by evidence, logic, or science. To invoke the “things were different then” argument is to call upon magical forces or spiritism.
.
Logically: Allegedly, the nothingness condensed as a result of gravity — that is that EVERYTHING including time and space condensed by gravity — but if nothing existed then gravity could not exist either. Allegedly, the nothingness got hot when it condensed, but if nothing existed then energy (like heat) could not exist either. Allegedly, the nothingness condensed into a superdense core of nothing, but nothing has no density, or mass — because nothing is nothing. No logic.
.
Evidence: Big Bang theorists cannot explain why there is not enough antimatter in the universe. Big Bang theorists cannot explain why their calculations are far too exacting. Big Bang theorists canot explain why their theory is dependant upon impossibilities — namely that nothingness cannot pack together, a vacuum has no density, nothingness is not good fuel, there is no ignition source to explode the nothingness if it could. There is NO evidence.
.
Scientifically: Science makes predictions. Big Bang predicts that background radiation would prove the Big Bang theory in four ways. 1) It would come from only one direction— the Big Bang source. 2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. 3) It would emit the proper spectrum. 4) It would not be a “smooth” radiation
.
All four of these predictions proved false.
.
Big Bang also faces three scientific problems that it cannot overcome. The Flatness problem (expansion rate v gravity), the Light Travel Time Problem, aka, Horizon Problem, and the Monopole Problem.
.
Speaking of theoretical physicists, Stephen W. Hawking of Cambridge University is probably one of the most influential theoretical physicists in the world, possibly in the history of the world, and he rejected the Big Bang theory more than 20 years ago (National Geographic, December 1988, p. 762).
.
Further references:
Creation: Cosmic Evolution Part I
Creation: Cosmic Evolution Part II
Creation: Cosmic Evolution Part III
Didn’t see this comment. Already listed four. The other two are that 5) when we created powerful enough telescopes we would be able to see events (light) that was several million/billion years old and that evidence would support the various Big Bang hypothesis. We have those telescopes and the evidence contradicts Big Bang. For example, we don’t see any “proto-stars” nor do we see the number of novae / supernovae that Big Bang predicts. And 6) Big Bang predicts there will not be a Flatness problem, yet the Flatness problem (sometimes called the Light Travel Time Problem) exists — thereby refuting Big Bang.
.
I also mention the Monopole problem though I think any single one of these puts a stake in the heart of the theory, so the Monopole problem becomes superflous.
.
Hope this helps.
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
Would that be the same Stephen Hawking who said “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” in 1996?
.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
You said this:
“Just as Lamark’s deer dreamed of a long neck and on the strength of that dream it “evolved” into a giraffe…”
.
As far as I know this is unrelated to Lamarck’s ideas. If I understand correctly, he thought that ancestors of giraffes grew continually longer necks by stretching up to eat the higher foliage of trees. He thought that the use and stretching of the neck resulted in a small amount of increase in the length of the neck, and Larmack thought that this change could be passed on to the offspring of the deer. After many generations, by his idea, the necks of the giraffes would be much longer than their ancestors’ necks. At the time, of course, no one knew how heredity worked.
I have not actually read Lamarck’s writing, but as far as I know, his ideas were based on physical use of the animal’s body parts through their response to their environments, and not at all on their thoughts, wishes or dreams.
The idea that evolution is based on Lamarck’s dreaming deer misrepresents both the ideas of evolution and the ideas of Lamarck.
Welcome back.
.
I don’t feel it misrepresents. I feel it summarizes. Lamarkism is not scientific, nor is faith-based Darwinism.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
I’m sure it does summarize. It just does it in a very inaccurate way. If you were to summarize accurately, you’d stick to the facts and leave your opinions out of it.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
I appreciate your opinion.
I got distracted, but sometime I hope I can get back to the fish and rewrite that comment without saying ‘could have’, since that seems to be a poor way of phrasing things, judging by your response.
Hawking, with a co-author, has a new book called “The Grand Design” which is about to come out.
From sept. 2 on the website guardian.co.uk:
“The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.””
It is my understanding that gravity has certain dependencies, such as mass.
.
Nevertheless, hearing people say things like “spontaneous creation” is fascinating because it completely removes the cause from the effect.
The book isn’t out yet; I’ll have to wait to see what he says. (That’s if I read it at all; it’s not something I’m interested in.) I would guess there’s a limit to how sure he can be – it’s too far removed from what we can measure.
But anyway, the quote you used about Hawking seems like it is not representative of his actual or current thinking.
Minutia; Gregg has proved his point that you need to have a belief structure in order to interpret evidence.
Why is this a bad thing? Oh, nevermind; we might get drawn into a pointless, off-topic debate again.
THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT: EVERYONE HAS A BELIEF SYSTEM. PERIOD.