Are you a creationist? Do you think you have the definitive proof that evolutionary theory is wrong and your brand of creationism is right? Well, I’d love to hear from you.
Post a comment to this page, or send an email to jacksca (at) gmail (dot) com with your claim/evidence/argument. I’ll try and answer any responses I (arbitrarily) find to be memorable/thought-provoking with a special post on the blog. Feel free to point out anything you think I got wrong in the response in the comments of that post.
Forgive me if you’ve had this point already discussed but it seems from your laissez-faire arrogance in your intellectual superiority that you haven’t.
It is my belief that creationism can coexist perfectly well evolution, I don’t see why you have to have one or the other. To me and any other true believer, God can perform the impossible. I believe that God created the world as it is in 6 days, (God days of course but their time frame is irrelevant). I don’t see why this conflicts with evolution. God created fossils, he created everything to appear as if it had evolved so it’s only natural you would reach that conclusion. He devised mutations, micro and macro evolution just because he wanted to. I don’t see how a belief in evolution denies the existence of God or the other way around.
tl;dr Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
@ Peter:
Why would a deity plant fossils in rocks that he made to appear old? Why do that? I’d like to see evidence for such a claim, but even without, I’d have to question the motives of your deity.
Just to make sure, you are completely serious about this, right? If you are, no offense, but some people just like applying Poe’s Law.
I’m not the one to be applying reason to God’s motives. Why would he create humans who would question his existence? Why would he let the Devil continue to exist? Why create the universe at all? In regards to fossils, perhaps he was practising on the rock organisms before moving onto the harder and more complex living ones. Like a preliminary sketch. Anyway, the point is, God works in mysterious ways beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals.
Poe’s Law?
Okay, so you define the Creator of the Universe as a being that works in ways that make it seem like He doesn’t exist? I’m sorry, but unless you evidence for that, you can’t support a conclusion that produces supernatural existence from evidence that is completely consistent with a scientific theory that needs no other additions to it outside of itself.
For example, it’s not logical for me to conclude: “Space aliens built my house. However, if you look for evidence that they didn’t, you’ll only find things that make it seem like they weren’t involved. But they really were, and changed the evidence to throw you off.” That’s basically what you’re saying.
Please provide some evidence that you think supports creationism, and only creationism, without some sort of prior belief in creationism necessary for it work.
Oh, and this is what Poe’s Law is: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Naontiotami,
I would like to challenge your statement that the Theory of Evolution needs no other additions to itself outside of itself. Evolutionists openly acknowledge that the two biggest problems facing the theory is the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Neither problem is adequately explained by natural processes.
Hi Jacen,
I don't mean to be rude, so don't take this the wrong way, but when you challenge someone about a statement they made, usually it's best to back up any claims with evidence. For example, "Evolutionists openly acknowledge that the two biggest problems facing the theory is the origin of the universe and the origin of life." – I'd like to see examples of quotes from "evolutionists".
However, even without quotes, your argument is highly flawed. Evolutionary theory *is* self-contained – it is only intelligent design proponents and creationists who would like to think that it requires explanations about the origin of the Universe and the origin of life in order to have any explanatory power: this is because they, including yourself I assume, have an alternative explanation to evolutionary theory that encompasses these two other fields as well. You evolution as a rival to your entire "worldview", and the fact that it doesn't address these other areas that you have an opinion about is somehow evidence against it.
Not so.
You could accept evolutionary theory for the development of life on Earth and still believe that the origin of life and the origin of the Universe were both supernatural events – they are not connected in any way that makes such a believe combination impossible by itself.
Of course, I would have serious problems with those two supernatural claims, but that's beside the point of the argument – even if there were no evidence for the natural origins of life on Earth and the Universe, evolutionary theory would still be 100% as supported by data as it currently is. There is no overlap.
If you would like to contest this claim, perhaps you should structure an argument.
Hi Jack,
I do believe that atheistic evolutionists have the most difficult time out of anything else explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of life by natural processes. It’s not some hidden secret that they are having problems trying to completely and logically explain how things came to be.
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” – Francis Crick, Life Itself: It’s Origin and Nature
“…astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness.” – Sten Odenwald, The Astronomy Café
“It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning.” – Joseph Silk, The Big Bang
"It became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry." – John Sullivan, Limitations of Science
"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." – John Horgan, "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age"
“Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the subject, but many more rather implausible ones.” – Andrew Scott, "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien"
I think I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on some things. I agree that the belief in evolution is self-contained in that people can believe its history and also stick with their religious beliefs about the supernatural. Depending on their religion, however, they may be accepting contradictions.
I am a Christian who believes in the God of the Bible. The Bible does not teach that one “kind” of organism changed into another “kind” (ex. fish changing into reptiles). Rather, it says that every organism reproduces after its own kind. If a Christian believes Darwin, then they believe in millions of years of death because death is a part of natural selection. The Bible clearly states “in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:22). How can a Christian logically accept six days and millions of years? How can a Christian accept all these deaths before the sin of Adam? What causes death then? Certainly not sin, though that is what the Bible teaches (“Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin” Romans 5:12)
This is why many Christians get upset every time the belief in evolution is pushed in their faces and shoved down their throats through the public school system and other media outlets. When they hear “millions of years, evolution is fact, apes are our closest relative, etc.,” that is translated to “the Bible’s not true, God isn’t real, the Bible’s not true, it’s just a made up fairy tale.” The belief in evolution undermines our entire “worldview” (as you say it) because our worldview is (or should be) completely based upon the starting point of the Bible.
Hence, for Christians, origins are not independent of the rest of history. We cannot logically accept evolutionary “theory” (as you say it) for the development of life on Earth and still believe that the origin of life and the origin of the Universe were both supernatural events without also accepting contradictions in our beliefs.
I would like to contest the last claim you made in your post. You say that evolutionary “theory” (as you say it) is 100% supported by data as it currently is. Actually, the Bible and what it says is 100% supported by data as it currently is. Why do you believe in evolution?
Hey Peter!
I think your ideas are totally brilliant! How can anyone EVER prove you wrong? It’s just God’s will to leave us confused and doubtful to his existence. The way I see it, is God’s a smart guy toying with our lives, creating puzzling contradictions, getting a holy man to write the bible full of riddles that nobody can fully solve, and so never be able to disprove (it MIGHT mean something else!) them, and throwing little teasing bits of evidence that COULD lead people to conclude his nonexistence, so only the super smart ones realise he exists. Or maybe…God’s going to send all people who continue to believe in him to hell and take all the smarties up to heaven to live with him and laugh at all the silly ones. Or maybe…he’s not real and we have to accept that we’re mortal and shit happens, sometimes for no reason.
@Peter,
Ok, so you are accusing Naontiotami of arrogance? Isn’t it more arrogant to say that your god made the universe in 6 days and you believe it? You literally think it is literally 6 days….literally? That is a hellllll (word used intentionally) of a lot more arrogant than anything built on ACTUAL research and intellectual analysis.
I was going to say something else about your intellectual superiority comment, but there is no point because Jack is intellectually superior to you!
Cheers!
“Okay, so you define the Creator of the Universe as a being that works in ways that make it seem like He doesn’t exist?” – Jack, evidence for evolution does not in any way dismiss the existence of God, I hoped that even you would be mature enough to accept that.
My evidence for creationism is the universe. Not just the presence of mass and energy themselves but the fundamental laws of physics which govern our existence. The fact that some thing so complex as the universe exists and is able to support life is something I find hard to believe occured from random chance. It is my belief that there is a Divine being who decided that life should be able to exist and thus made the universe the way it is. If the laws of physics were even slightly different all life and existance as we know it would not be possible. For instance if gravity worked differently and all matter was repelled from each other then obviously things would have turned out a little differently and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
Back to the main point, maybe he didn’t plant fossils and maybe he did. That seems entirely irrelevant to our conversation that God and evolution can co-exist quite peacefully.
Skelliot – I’m not even going to reply to you. Unless your post is a joke. In which case we can share a beer together someday.
Marble – That God would be a bastard. If he was really that sadistic the world would be a (slightly) different place. If that were the case I’d join arms with you in tearing down his temples and slaying his worshippers.
Skelliot, you are using personal and unjustified attacks. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as atheist as the next guy, but you’re sounding just like a crazy religious fanatic. Make sure you actually adress the points raised in a logical and reasonable manner and try not to make it personal.
We’re a shunned community for the most part and need to keep up our reputation for tolerance, intellect and understanding.
Cheers.
@ Peter:
“Jack, evidence for evolution does not in any way dismiss the existence of God, I hoped that even you would be mature enough to accept that.”
I think I’m plenty mature, thank you.
It depends. Evolutionary theory in its current form contradicts many young-earth creationist interpretations of the Bible: their assertions are simply not compatible with the science. However, evolution could be compatible with many claims about God, ie. theistic evolution. By saying that “God and evolution can co-exist quite peacefully”, I take that as you meaning that you are a theistic evolutionist (God guided evolutionary processes) and that you think evolution did occur.
However, this comment seems to go against that: “Back to the main point, maybe he didn’t plant fossils and maybe he did.” Don’t you realise that if the fossil record was not produced over millions of years, preserving organisms throughout the age, then evolution could not be true? If the fossil record was not laid down in a geological timeframe, then the earth would not be billions of years old and evolution would not have happened. You see, if God planted the fossils, evolution didn’t happen. It’s as simple as that.
“My evidence for creationism is the universe. Not just the presence of mass and energy themselves but the fundamental laws of physics which govern our existence. The fact that some thing so complex as the universe exists and is able to support life is something I find hard to believe occured from random chance. It is my belief that there is a Divine being who decided that life should be able to exist and thus made the universe the way it is.”
Here I’d like to ask this question. Would we find ourselves existing in a universe that is not friendly to life? It’s not by chance that the universe we are in just HAPPENS to allow us to exist: we would not be here thinking about it if it wasn’t. Therefore, the argument from cosmological design breaks down. The universe must exist the way it is because we are in it, not because some deity wanted it to be a nice place for us to live.
“If the laws of physics were even slightly different all life and existence as we know it would not be possible. For instance if gravity worked differently and all matter was repelled from each other then obviously things would have turned out a little differently and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.”
Of course, if gravity was a repulsive force then life would not be possible. But how do you know that changing any universal constant in any way would result in a life-free universe? You don’t. Plus, it goes back to the previous comment: we can only observe ourselves existing in a universe that allows us to exist. You do not know the probability of a universe existing with our universe’s traits, so an argument based upon the unlikelihood of our universe existing is therefore invalid.
“Mable – That God would be a bastard. If he was really that sadistic the world would be a (slightly) different place. If that were the case I’d join arms with you in tearing down his temples and slaying his worshippers.”
It’d like to hear how your God is any different, Peter. Though I would never go around killing people who believed in a deity like that, and I’m sure Mable wouldn’t either. Ever heard of free speech?
@ Skelliot:
I’m not sure he was accusing me of arrogance. He was simply carrying on with his argument and clarifying something (not that it made it any clearer, mind). I’m sorry to say this, but perhaps you could take Tim’s advice and hang back on the harsh comments, eh? I know you’re trying to help, but in some cases it doesn’t, especially in cases where we’re trying to tread on fragile ground concerning logical fallacies. Most creationist, after reading your comment, would then proclaim victory due to us having to resort to personal attacks and scathing comments not related to the specific arguments.
Yes, maybe I did come on a bit strong. It just boils my blood that people who search for actual evidence get called arrogant and “intellectually superior” (in a derogatory way) by people who believe something without any evidence or research what so ever. However, I do not see how my comment was ad hominem, apart from the obvious one at the end of the comment. I think the rest of my comment is relevant, if not a bit scathing haha.
Skelliot
@Peter:
“My evidence for creationism is the universe. Not just the presence of mass and energy themselves but the fundamental laws of physics which govern our existence.”
I fail to see how this is evidence for a creator. I am sure that any scientist or philosopher could come up with equally plausible or implausible explanations. Whatever the case, it is not evidence that a divine being had anything to do with it.
Poor Peter,
I have to admit you presented your creationist argument in a poor manner. Biblically speaking, the theory of evolution does not mix with the Bible. Genesis is quite clear; don’t water it down with “God’s days”, etc. I would tell you specifically but that’s another conversation.
Naontiotami explains it correctly regarding the young creationist’s views. I hung my head when the notion was brought up about God planting fossils. No No No. Fossils are from dead things. The difference between young earth creationists and evolutionists in regards to how the fossils got there is really the timing. Evolutionists believe (in general) that over millions of years, animals died and their bones remain in rock form. Young earth creationists believe the massive amount of fossils are buried the way they are and fossilized when the earth was covered with water during the whole Noah’s ark event. (in a nutshell)
I’ll come back later for that. Since you’ve visited AiG, see what they say about the flood and fossils. The website may or may not be that extensive but the New Answers book is very detailed about it.
How could new traits (added complexity) develop in a species (according to the Theory of Evolution)?
Evolutionists say “new traits are possible through vestigial organs”, but vestigial organs aren’t the keys to the development of new traits. In fact, they go against Evolution itself. Vestigial organs do not serve a function and would not help the species survive. Therefore, vestigial organs should appear only when a species loses a physical feature or ability and should eventually disappear from the species.
Answer this: How could the Human Eye have developed? (I surely hope you do not say ‘by chance’, for that would be an absurd notion)
Fantastic answer Jack, I am proud to say I know you!
[Here I’d like to ask this question. Would we find ourselves existing in a universe that is not friendly to life? It’s not by chance that the universe we are in just HAPPENS to allow us to exist: we would not be here thinking about it if it wasn’t. Therefore, the argument from cosmological design breaks down. The universe must exist the way it is because we are in it, not because some deity wanted it to be a nice place for us to live.]
this is a rather foolish objection. that’s tantamount to saying ” If you’re right then you’re right”.
Imagine you being taken out to be executed by firing squad with your buddy.You close your eyes. The firing squad lines up. Each aims at you two and all fire. You open your eyes and are surprised to find despite the fact that it was highly improbable, somehow you were still alive and no bullets hit you. you search for an explaination. Perhaps they were firing blanks, is it some kind of mock execution? Your friend however decides to be a skeptic and say. ‘If the bullets had hit us we wouldn’t be alive to make this observation. No explaination for this improbable event is needed’.That’s what your answer is tantamount to Jack.
You seem to have mistaken what I was saying as explanation for the Universe's existence, when what I was really addressing was the fact that the Universe can support life.
I completely agree that what I said is not an explanation for the Universe's existence, but it is an explanation for why we can exist in it. Sorry you got confused.
Lightforce, nice try, but I find it odd that you claim that evolutionists say that new traits are possible through vestigial organs. I have no clue as to what you mean by that. Vestigial organs are organs that had a function in a common ancestor, but have no function in the descendant in questions.
Natural selection will lead to the eventual disappearance of vestigial organs, over a long period of time. Organisms which devote less energy to "feeding" vestigial organs will have energy for other purposes and thereby enhance their own survival.. It is through examining the physiology of our close phylogenetic "relatives" that we are able to see the function of vestigial organism. In summary, vestigial organisms served a function, but serve it no longer. Natural selection eventually leads to the disappearance of the organ, but not in a single generation.
Secondly, you are quite right that the evolution of the human eye is absurd if only chance were involved in evolution. Darwin treats this question quite extensively. The human eye has many defects which leave it far short of perfection, and far short of the eye that has evolved for raptors. There are examples in nature of eyes that are superior to our own because the eye has developed well enough to be "suitable" for our needs. An eagle with similar limitations would starve, unable to see the mouse from high altitude.
We can study all phases of the development of the eye in other species, from light sensitive organelles containing no more sophisticated mechanisms than the presence of rhodopsin proteins, and yet they provide enough of an advantage to their organism to further its survival.
I would venture to say that if you invested time in the study of evolution, you would find it fascinating and not the fantasy you propose.
The way I see things is that the definition of "space" can be like the definition of cold as the absence of heat, or to say space is the absence of matter, the basic teaching of science is that some form of matter combined to start the whole process that led to the creation of the universe and on to evolution. There is not even a comical, let alone a plausible theory of where or how this "mysterious" matter came into being. So until this simple question can be answered by science every concept of evolution will remain THEORY! Just as we know how to manipulate magnetism into electricity and all the marvels of science it produced, we still can not explain precisely how it works. Any Christian will tell you faith is a requirement, God designed things for this reason, to believe that something was created from nothing requires a leap of faith, and that this concept will still be true until the end of time,I therefore, choose GOD. I will continue to pray for you and should you decide to change your mind checkout http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#believe In Christian love, James..
The way I see things is that the definition of "space" can be like the definition of cold as the absence of heat, or to say space is the absence of matter, the basic teaching of science is that some form of matter combined to start the whole process that led to the creation of the universe and on to evolution. There is not even a comical, let alone a plausible theory of where or how this "mysterious" matter came into being. So until this simple question can be answered by science every concept of evolution will remain THEORY! Just as we know how to manipulate magnetism into electricity and all the marvels of science it produced, we still can not explain precisely how it works. Any Christian will tell you faith is a requirement, God designed things for this reason, to believe that something was created from nothing requires a leap of faith, and that this concept will still be true until the end of time,I therefore, choose GOD. I will continue to pray for you and should you decide to change your mind checkout http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#believe In Christian love, James..
Hey James.
It appears that you have trouble accepting the scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe. Of course, you are entitled to not being convinced by the evidence, but it is irrational to go from your position of not believing the scientific consensus to a positive belief in something with no evidence, as this is a classic logical fallacy: the false dichotomy/argument from ignorance.
I know religion is highly personal for most people, but I fail to see how you, who I'm presuming is an evangelical Christian, could ever hope to win converts by foisting your own lack of understanding onto other people. The fact that science, in your mind, cannot explain the origin of the Universe, does not make your belief in the literal word of God any more justified, and it doesn't make me want to believe you in the slightest. I'll be happy to consider evidence that you have, but if all you're going to do is present logical fallacies, it's rather pointless is trying to convert me.
Cheers,
Jack
Dear Naon, my intention, by far is not, to force my belief on anyone. You are obviously very intelligent with a passion for science, I share this passion as well, It is an astoundingly useful tool. Science tells us matter can not be created or destroyed, merely converted from one form to another, and I believe this as fact. I assume you do as well. It is my belief that to assume cosmic matter just appeared from nothing is scientifically impossible. So a leap of faith is required to believe that it did. Therefore our very existence "is" positive evidence of the existence of God the Creator. I simply choose this leap of faith over the one that allows me to believe something was created from nothing much less, that chance brought everything together to create life as we know it. I do not know if you purposely omitted any comment of my reference to the fact that we have no explanation for magnetism, but imagine the consequences if we remove the existence of just this "one" phenomenon, I certainly would not be able to communicate with you about God, and his love for you, even if you do not believe in him. By the way, have you tried reading the bible? continuing to pray… James
First, Big Bang Theory does not say that something came from nothing. Scientists still say they don't know what occurred in the nanoseconds after, nor what happened/existed before. If you think otherwise, then you've been mislead. It's possible that the sources of your knowledge have intentionally misrepresented BBT, and other scientific theories, to support their own arguments which just happen to coincide with their religious and political goals. What do you think the probability is of that? You think that some people are willing to lie for their God? I do.
The answer of theists is "Well, God did it" which isn't an answer, either. In any case, we may well never figure it out, but that does not mean that by default a divine creator did it.
Second, about magnetism: just because we do not yet have the answer does not mean that we never will. Again, saying "God did it" just because *you* don't have the answer does not mean your answer is better than any other. You're trying to use the cosmological argument here, and maybe you should learn about the various arguments and why skeptics and non-believers call people out when they are used. There is a reason.
If you truly want to be honest about it, don't just listen to the arguments given to you by preachers, church colleagues, biased journalists, and religious scientists who feel they have to deny the evidence before their eyes or else they feel like they've failed their faith. Understand the arguments from both sides and make your own conclusions.
Tell me, one of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not lie," right? Do you feel that it is ok (not just ok, but acceptable, maybe mandatory) for a Christian to intentionally mislead others about facts if they feel it "defends the faith?" Well, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, this is exactly what creationists, specifically Intelligent Design proponents and YEC groups are doing. They feel justified in changing and misrepresenting fact if it means defending Jesus and the Bible.
A lie is a lie, even if it is spoken in defense of something you feel is inerrant.
As a guest but soon to not be,
RhunDraco
LOL…you guys crack me up. while your busy having this meaningless debate, the Adepts of the ANCIENT mystery schools of PAGANISM have infected every part of our society and EVERY sect of religion. They dominated until the birth of Christ and now are despotically seeking their throne once again.
Research the Vatican Council of World Churches and the Council of Ecumenical Affairs. The Vatican and its Jesuit army(please look them up…they were probably exiled from your country at one time too) are uniting ALL the churches under the two arms of Vatican power.The Black Pope…and the more publically known White Pope
Wake the F up!
http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world
They have excellent arguments.
Information—the real problem with evolution
The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so I would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution—see the appendix to this book). The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE.7 ‘Information theory,’ as it is called, is a whole new branch of science that has effectively destroyed the last underpinnings of evolution—explained fully in the monumental work In the Beginning Was Information by Dr Werner Gitt, professor and head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology.
The second episode of the PBS Evolution series, titled ‘Great Transformations,’ faced this problem when it tried to prove the ‘big picture’ of evolution, i.e., the ‘general theory of evolution.’ Of course, it could offer no experimental evidence, only inference. Its only experimental ‘evidence’ for ‘evolution’ was a bunch of examples of biological change that don’t increase information content, and so actually these examples have nothing to do with the ‘big picture.’
The PBS program did make a revealing comment about the real nature of the ‘evidence’ for evolution: ‘The evidence for evolution is all around us, if we choose to look for it.’ The comment is revealing, not because the evidence really supports evolution, but because the narrator inadvertently makes an important point. That is, creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence (facts), but we interpret it differently because of our different axioms (starting assumptions). In reality, evolutionists have a materialistic bias, which rejects a common Designer a priori (see Lewontin’s admission earlier in this chapter), and this applies even to evolutionists who believe in ‘God.’ Because of their bias, evolutionists interpret any facts as evidence for evolution. This would probably explain why a lot of the science in the PBS series was not even directly stated as evidence for evolution, but is shown as if it is. It also explains why fragmentary remains are interpreted as important ‘transitional forms.’ Conversely, creationists do not dispute the facts, since we have the same facts, although we frequently dispute assertions claimed to be facts when they are certainly not!
The PBS narrator blindly asserts that all living organisms come from a single source and that we can now trace branches and roots. Yet the series utterly fails to explain one of the most vexing problems with evolution: how non-living chemicals could form a living cell by time and chance, despite the insuperable chemical hurdles.8 Interestingly, the PBS producer Richard Hutton never acknowledged this problem in the series, but he did on a Washington Post online forum, when he answered the question ‘What are some of the larger questions which are still unanswered by evolutionary theory?’
There are open questions and controversies, and the fights can be fierce. Just a few of them: The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here—lots of theories, little science. That’s one of the reasons we didn’t cover it in the series. The evidence wasn’t very good.9
No, the evidence for the first living organism certainly isn’t ‘very good’ (see chapter 9), but of course the producer wouldn’t want his viewers to know that! In other words, the very roots of the alleged evolutionary tree are in very bad shape. So they gloss over the problems, assert that there really is a well-documented tree, and then move on to find similarities between organisms and claim that this proves a common ancestor.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-...
Thank you, Theo, for your lengthy comment. I think this deserves its own post in response – you've said so much stuff that using the comments section of this page would be unworkable and clumsy. Expect a response to this very soon.
Cheers,
Jack
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-...
http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end
Not to complain, but I do tend to like people to give cogent arguments rather than just links to websites when I ask them for… arguments. If you want to rephrase any of the things you've linked to here in your own words, that'd be great.
i believe in evolution. i believe in a creator. i believe his intelligent design WAS evolution. i believe what science has shown us, not what some goat farmers living in tents 3000 years ago wrote on scrolls. i believe in a creator out of logical necessity, not religious conviction. the universe could not have created itself. and if u say, well what if its been here eternally? then i remind u that time is part of creation and the creator is outside of creation, so he does not suffer from time. something had to decide that existence be.
nonetheless, christianity is a barbaric creed that ignores the achievements of civilization. it is a dangerous and ignorant cult and creationism is a perfect illustration of this.
So Jargon, are there any claims you would like to specifically make, with evidence? I’d be glad to open a dialogue.
Hi, lightforce. Thanks for taking the time to post a comment and open a dialogue.
Firstly, in order to answer your question, I must point out that evolution does not have to progress by the modification of vestigial organs. New traits can come about through many ways.
A vestigial organ is defined as any organ that has lost its original function in the organism. For example, the appendix is a vestigial part of the digestive system, because it has lost the ability to extract water and nutrients from food in the gut. However, that does not mean that it has no function: there are plenty of lymph nodes around the appendix, as well as around the whole large intestine, so it still serves a function as part of the lymphatic system.
Thus, vestigial organs do not have to be functionless, they just have to have lost their original function.
New traits can develop in many ways, but I’m going to focus on how additional traits can develop, because I have had enough experience with creationists to know that any mention of a new trait through the modification of an old one will not be accepted.
The main way that a completely new trait (ie. gene) can evolve in a population of organisms is through gene duplication: the process by which a gene is faultily copied during cell division, and one daughter cell gets two copies of a gene and the other gets no copies. If such a gene duplication happens in a gamete (ie. sperm or ova), the duplicated gene can be passed onto the next generation.
Once a gene duplication has manifested itself in a population, the copy off the original gene can then be mutated and changed through natural selection, even if the original gene was a vital gene, needed in its unmutated state for the organism to survive (as the original can still function normally). New proteins can therefore be expressed, and new traits developed.
One outcome of a gene duplication is a gene family: a collection of genes that all share a distinct common ancestry and work together to perform some greater function or biochemical system. Well known examples of gene families are: the Homeobox gene family, which controls the development of the body in animals; the Aquaporin gene family, which code for the Aquaporin proteins that involved in the transportation of water molecules through cell membranes; and the Beta-globin gene family, which codes for the various “globin” proteins that transport oxygen in the blood.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to say “by chance”. ;p Chance is not what evolution is, contrary to popular belief. To be honest, there is some element of chance to evolutionary processes (ie. mutations), but natural selection is completely non-random (hence, ‘selection’) because it follows a benefit to the organism. Thus, the overall progress of evolution is not random, and traits are usually evolved for a reason (usually being that it helps the organism survive longer, reproduce better etc.).
The human eye is fairly easy to explain in evolutionary terms. By looking at modern-day organisms with primitive eyes, we can build up a picture of how the human eye could have evolved in the past. Contrary to what some people think, the eye is not irreducibly complex: it doesn’t need all of its parts for it to work. For example, if you don’t have a lens, the image is not in focus, but you can still use the visual information you receive to navigate. Of course, if you didn’t have a retina, you would be able to detect any light, but by studying modern primitive eyes, we can clearly see that the retina (a patch of light-sensitive cells) would have evolved first, and would have been an advantage to organisms that had it. An example of a modern-day “primitive” eye is the eye of a snail. It is so primitive, in fact, that it can only detect the difference between light and dark, and is useful only for detecting the direction of light sources. However, it is beneficial to the snail, and that’s all it needs.
A possible pathway for the evolution of the human eye would be something like this (following something like this image here):
- a type of cell that can detect the presence of light evolves (keep in mind that their light-detecting efficiency can improve over time as the overall eye does)
- this cell migrates to the surface of the organism, where it is concentrated in patches for greater effect
- the surface where the light-detecting cells are collected becomes concave, allowing for primitive detection of light directionality
- the surface becomes even more concave (down to a “pinhole camera” shape), allowing for greater directionality detection
- the inside of the eye “cup” filled with a transparent fluid (a humor), which offered many benefits, including greater oxygen availability to the inside of the eye and various immune functions
- the lens develops to increase the focusing power of the eye and allows for greater image resolution
And, basically, now you have an eye that is very much like the human eye. The evolution of the eye would have been going on at the same time as other changes were taking place (as well as speciations), so we would expect to see similar, yet slightly different, eyes in our close evolutionary relatives. And we do.
I hope all that answered your questions. Again, thank you for commenting.