Looks like Karl Giberson got ... Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

And the truth shall set you free. This could be the moment when America comes to it’s senses and begins to lead the world into the future again and not to the stone age.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Um.  Yeah.  I grew up as an evangelical Christian and believed everything I was supposed to believe, and then in 2006, my agent asked me what I might think about writing a book about Eve.  I did.  It came out in 2009.  Two things happened.  My faith unraveled because I had now done the research AND the fact that I tried to “bridge” those two concepts for people (the myth that God made Adam and Eve…) AND there were Sumerians at the same time) flummoxed readers.  Didn’t I believe Adam and Eve were the first people?  What were those Sumerians doing in there?  And I had to explain that if you follow the generational explanations in the Bible and/or Torah, you were pretty much stuck with 4000 B.C., and oh no! there were cultures already living then, so what do you do with that?  Interesting article, and I think it’s spot on.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Not likely: evangelical intelligentsia.

Reason for hope: Mohler and others say if other Protestants want to accommodate science, fine. But they shouldn’t be surprised if their faith unravels.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Through science and studying chaos theory, I came to believe in design - an intelligence we cannot yet comprehend, being behind all creation. In my view, religion therefore actually takes people away from understanding the creative force, and surplants this with a nasty, murderous fiend who purposefully created hell, and slaughters disobedient people. For the church to have gained the power that it has,  this is exactly the view it would have promoted to the uneducated and superstitious all those years ago. casting itself as the ONLY link to this fiend for those who wished to beg for mercy, or save their asses from hellfire and damnation…..with this enslaved populace in it’s pocket, the church had massive bargaining power with political/souvereign rulers all over the world.  As a species, we are slowly outgrowing the need for this…bad news for the church!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I sure hope this is a “galilean moment” and that it marks the beginning of the end of this BS.  I love the reasoning from the PhD in biochemistry:

“Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it’s not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.”

So…basically the bible is true because if not then the bible would not be true, and since we know the bible is true it obviously follows that it cant be untrue.  Did I get that right?  Catch-22 much?

“He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam’s original sin.”

Well, in that case, what was the point of the great flood?  Why not take care of the whole original sin business right then and there since he was wiping out all the “evil” people (and evil animals and plants) anyways?  Or better yet, why not do the whole sacrifice himself to himself trick (although not really a “sacrifice” per se, since he was just going right back to heaven) instead of the flood?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

When are religious folks going to figure out that agreeing that evolution *could* have produced life or *could have produced humans doesn’t mean that you’re agreeing that it *did*?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“an intelligence we cannot yet comprehend, being behind all creation. “

So you cannot comprehend that intelligence, but you can comprehend that it is intelligence, and can comprehend that it is behind all creation.

What else can you comprehend about that thing we cannot comprehend?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yes, that is quite an article. And I am not surprised, in fact you will see more of same, as the Lord’s return draws nearer (Remember, my discussion on blog: “Did God create the world in six literal days”? on Christian News New Zealand). Of course, there is no way of reconciling creation and Adam and Eve with evolution because God did not use evolution. It amounts to the same old story of filtering and interpreting the evidence through an evolutionary world view—of the evolutionary paradigm becoming an accepted hermeneutic (unfortunately, Christians are falling for same) for interpreting the Bible—of determining what is true in the Bible. That professor who said there would be not enough variant mutations to trace human evolution from primates in 10,000 years is right, of course, Dr. James Allan, Ph.D in genetics from the University of Edinburg, Scotland concluded that at least 150 billion forerunners of “modern man” would be required by evolution in order for natural selection to have taken place in the development of man from an assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee—and that is a much bigger problem than that of not enough time to trace human evolution from Adam and Eve in 6000-10,000 years. Where are all these “forerunners” or “Intermediates” ?  Of course, that should be no problem for “Christians,” even those with high academic credentials in science, for the simple reason that humans did not evolve from chimps. You know that is the common criticism that we all are tired of hearing—that the problem is taking the Bible literally, to which I can only say if Christians did not interpret the Bible in the straightforward, grammatical historical/biblical context/syntax and meaning in which it is written, but took it allegorically, as Venema suggested, we would all go the way of Harold Camping. Mohler is right, we would not only lose our own respect but that of the world. Unfortunately, what we are seeing (evangelical “Christians” denying foundational doctrine, such as the creation of Adam and Eve and Fall of the human race in scripture (Genesis 2-3) is what God’s Word predicts will happen (1 Tim.4: 1; 2 Tim. 4: 1-5; Matthew 7: 15) more and more as the Lord’s return draws near. Take care.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Since when has scientific opinion become a hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. I (and many others) find it hard to call scientists “smart men” (in spite of their impressive academic credentials) who believe an eplosion (the Big bang) created this infinitely beautiful, complex and ordered universe from extremely dense matter the size of an electron (not even the size of a pin head) , especially when they were not there when this universe came into being and we have never seen an explosion produce order and complexity out of disorder and complexity. This is hardly my idea of wisdom, but should appropriately be called what it is—stupidity. Spititually dead and blind men (and that includes Stephen Hawking) according to the Bible reject God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ and of His written word. A scientist may say “I don’t believe in heaven” but he is being very unscientific if he says heaven does not exist since the reality of heaven is beyond the miscrscope, telescope, etc. I think it takes far more faith to believe this universe was produced by an explosion (even a supernatural superintended one) from dense matter the size of a pinhead (Who created it?)  than to beleve that an infinitely WISE, ALL-KNOWING and ALL-Powerful and HOLY God spoke ithis universe and all that is in it into existence. There are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory despite its popularity among the scientific community. I am tired of Christians compromising their convictions, even foundational doctrines (historical Adam and Fall) , because of exalting scientific opinion above the authority of scripture. Nothing new. They will be with us until the Lord returns.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If we are going to compare this “evolutionary” controversy concerning the supposedly questionable existence of adam and Eve to “a Galileo moment,”  the author should have at least got his facts straight. The Galileo controversy was certainly not a simple case of science versus the church (i.e Roman Catholic). As many historians of science have pointed out, the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment itself. The prevailing “scientific wisdom” of the day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory—a geocentric system, with the earth at the center of the universe. It is not ironic that the four heroes of a heliocentric (sun-centered solar system)—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton—were all young-earth creationists—a fact that teachers who are evolutionists students seldom, if ever, tell their students when discussing the “Galileo” controversy. The historian J.B. Russell, has documented that nearly all Christian scholars who have ever discussed the shape of the earth, have assented to its roundness (spheroidal).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

OMG…haven’t you noticed by now that NOBODY is paying attention to you?!  Alright, well I’ll admit I was, but in your first two post you neglected to mention anything even barely resembling an empirical fact.  In fact, the only evidence you’ve provided were quotes from scriptures in a book everyone on this site agrees were made up and a reference to this J.B. Russell guy.  But even if the church wasn’t the only authority rejecting the round earth theory, that only serves to prove that (as we all here agree) poorly contrived logic of any kind has no place in a scientific community.  To me, it only serves to further prove that this sense of egocentrism that’s so vastly prevelant in the church, this notion that we as human beings are inherently important to the universe just for existing (or being created in your opinion) and all the ridiculous concepts that come along with it (that an omnipotent, omnicient creator would bother taking time out of his day to create something so sloppy and haphazard as ourselves and then continue to spend more time watching every move every one of us makes and judge us accordingly, breaking practically every viable law of physics in the process, only so that a privledged few would somehow earn his way into his graces and get to spend an eternity in a utopia he created, again, just for us) is anything more than wishful thinking.

You’re absolutely ridiculous.  Fact, pure and simple, is that most, if not all, of modern medicine would be absolutely useless if the theory of evolution wasn’t true.  Care to go up to a cancer patient and tell him that his kemotherapy is a waste of time?  You say there’s holes in it.  Well there’s holes in the theory of gravity too.  In fact, the only thing we really know about gravity is that its a function of mass and that, of the few natural forces we’ve come upon, it is apparently the weakest.  Care to jump out of a building and see how that works for you.  You need more proof?  The missing links you’re looking for can be found in about dozens of museums worldwide.  Ever heard of Neanderthals?  They’re bigger, hairier and their spines are more curved, much like an apes.  Yet there are fossils all over the world suggesting human intelligence.  Ever see an ape at the zoo?  There’s a video online right now showing an orangutan dipping a cloth in water, ringing it out, and patting his face with it to cool off (I’d link it but I’m at work at the moment and it blocks youtube, but I’m sure it won’t be hard to find).  Seems pretty close to human behavior to me.  But you really don’t even have to look that far.  You have a tail bone.  What purpose does that serve?  Other than to hurt when you slip and fall on your ass (as you’ve done repeatedly during your poor excuse for an arguement).  But practically every other species of animal on the planet has a tail of some sort, especially when considering mammals.  Doesn’t seem like a far leap to assume we all came from the same place.  At the end of the day, you have no arguement.  Just a bunch of words that mean nothing.  You and your opinions are a waste of everybody’s time and energy, so I’d thank you to keep them to yourself from now on.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

oh…and btw, there’s nothing at all that suggest there’s order to the universe.  8 planets in our solar system, 9 if you include pluto, all in random eliptical orbits of different speeds and orientation.  Even the planets’ rotations are different; with random debris entering our solar system, passing the sun and being shot out into the universe, assuming it doesn’t hit anything along the way which it often does.  Stars explode and implode and collapse, sometimes sucking in entire galaxies.  Entire solar systems collide and form new ones or are completely erradicated, sending debris soaring through the cosmos.  Random clouds of gas accumulate in random areas of space, sometimes for eons with nothing significant occuring while others condense and heat up before exploding into new solar systems.  So I’ll give you beautiful, but orderly?  You apparently have no idea what the universe looks like.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Rayburne,

Can your “ALL-Powerful” god create a stone he then cannot lift?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m sorry.  Some evangelicals are finally coming around to thinking that the whole Adam and Eve bit is questionable, and they want to call it a Galileo moment.  Are you kidding me?  The rest of the world already had this moment in the mid to late 1800s.  Glad this nitwits could finally join the party.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Contrary to SINthetic, many of the most important medical advances were made without the slightest use being made of evolution:

Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749-1823)—note that this was before Darwin published “Origin of Species” in 1859.

Aseptic surgery by Joseph Lister, creationist (1827-1912)

Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811-1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.

Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822-1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.

Indeed, most of the branches of modern science were founded by believers in biblical creation.

Here is a brief, partial overview of what true scientists were accomplishing in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them were Creationists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): Glacial geology, ichthyology.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology.
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.
Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.
Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.
Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.
James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
Louise Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.
Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.
John Ray (1627-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry.
Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.
Sir George Stokes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics.
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology.
　
For example, the National Academy of Science’s book “Science, Evolution and Creationism” (2008) states:

“Scientific and technological advances have had profound effects on human life. In the 19th century, most families could expect to lose one or more children to disease. Today, in the United States and other developed countries, the death of a child from disease is uncommon. Every day we rely on technologies made possible through the application of knowledge and processes. The computers and cell phones which we use, the cars and airplanes in which we travel, the medicines that we take, and many of the foods that we eat were developed in part through insights obtained from scientific research. Science has boosted living standards, has enabled humans to travel into Earth’s orbit and to the Moon, and has given us new ways of thinking about ourselves and the universe. “

“Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.”

But it is not hard to notice that most of the scientific advances listed (above) haven’t the slightest thing to do with evolution.

Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791- 1871), who was not a biblical creationist but a creationist in the broad sense. He “believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author”.

Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879).

The creationist brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright (1967-1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.

The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), famous for claiming that his scientific discoveries were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

The theory of gravity and laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, were discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who also discovered the spectrum of light, invented the reflecting telescope, discovered the exponential law of cooling, and co-invented calcus.

The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution.

Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749-1823)—note this was before Darwin published “Origin of Species” in 1859.

Aseptic surgery by Joseph Lister, creationist (1827-1912).

Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811-1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.

Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist, who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.

The creationist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the faulty Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work. Indeed, most of the branches of modern science were founded by believers in biblical creation. 

Finally, I have to agree with Mike above in view of the ridiculous questions; for example, “Can your “ALL-Powerful” god create a stone he then cannot lift? What happened to :“How did Cain get his wife?) that I’m “Glad this nitwits could finally join the party.”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yes, we all know: “Evolution is a fact is a fact is a fact, right”? It takes a lot more faith to believe a rational universe having an irrational beginning from nothing; in L-proteins [left-handed molecules] that defy chance formation; in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; in a primitive environment that would fiendishly devour any chemical presursors to life; in experiments (i.e Miller) on the origin of life that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would hopelessly dilute chemicals; in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; in fossils that embarrassingly show fixety of kind (a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie) through time, regular absence from transitional forms and stringly testimony to world-wide water deluge; in time which prove only to promote degraduation in the absence of mind, and in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist arguments to zero and enforcing the need to invoke the miracle of creation by a supernatural Intelligent Creator , which is far more rational than invoking multiple miracles as the evolutionist does, or invoking “aliens” or “little green men” , as Dawkins does.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ah yes, the fossil record-the alleged fossil evidence for human evolution usually pictured in a lineal series from stooped to erect position in magazines and museums, creating the impression that we know what “Ape-men” looked like from the paper reconstructions of a clever artist from a few teeth or bones and a great deal of imagination (Nebraska Man turned out to be a single tooth-that of a peccary or extinct pig), including Neanderthal Man, for nearly a century viewed as a primitive subhuman ancestor of man, now classified as fully human Homo sapien. It all reminds me of the conversation between Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, who never claimed to be a scientist, and Richard Dawkins that goes like this:(Dawkins presents a transcript of his interview with Wendy Wright on pages 198-202 of his book “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution).

Wendy:  Show it to me, show me the bones, show me the carcass, show me the evidence of the in-between stages from one species to another (Note: creationists always believed in rapid speciation, which is compatible with creation. They would argue to show the in-between stages from one “kind” to another (fixity of kinds, not fixity of species—a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie). The real issue is not about whether change occurs; it is not even about the size of the change, or whether or not natural selection happens (it does) but the type of change required to change men microbes into men—change that increase genetic information content.. All the alleged proof for “evolution in action” to date don’t show that functional new information is added to genes.

Richard: “Every time a fossil is found which is in-between one species and another, you guys say,“ah, now we got two gaps there, where there previously was only one”. I mean every fossil you find is intermediate between something and something else.” (Note, “So one huge gap is now two huge gaps, leaving the origin of the distinctive features still unexplained. Or, the alleged intermediate is just a variety withing a kind, and explains nothing about how the kind evolved).

Wendy [laughs]: “If that were the case, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum would be filled with these examples, but it isn’t.”

Richard: “It is, it is..in the case of humans, since Darwin’s time there’s now an enormous amount of evidence about intermediates in human fossils and you’ve got various species of Australopithecus for example, and…then you got Homo habilis—these are intermediates between Australopithecus which was an older species and Homo sapiens which is a younger species. I mean, why don’t you see those as intermediates?”

Wendy: ..if evolution has had the actual evidence than it would be displayed in museums not just in illustrations (Wendy may not be as gullible as Richard Dawkins would like, but she is honest).

Richard:” I just told you about Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens—archaic Homo sapiens and then modern Homo sapeins—that’s a beautiful series of intermediates.”

Wendy: “You’re still lacking the material evidence so….”

Richard: “The material evidence is there. Go to the museum and look at it..“I don’t have them here , obviously, but you can go to any museum and you can see Australopithecus, you can see Homo habilis, you can see Homo erectus, you can see archaic Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens. A beautiful series of intermediates. Why do you keep saying, “Present me with the evidence’when I’ve done so? Go to the museum and look.”

Wendy: “And I have. I have gone to the museums and there are so many of us who are still not convinced….”

Richard: “Have you seen Homo erectus? Have you seen Homo habilis? Have you seen Australopithecus? I’ve asked you that question.”

Wendy: “What I’ve seen in the museums and in the textbooks whenever they claim to show the evolutionary differences from one species to another (actually, one kind to another), it relies on illustrations and drawings…not on any material evidence.”

Richard: Well you might have to go to the Nairobi Museum to see the original fossils but you can see the casts of fossils—exact copies of the fossils in any major museum you care to look at.”

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, concludes correctly: But, as Wendy Wright says, she has been to the museums, as have I (and many others). The point is: there is “evidence” and there are “stories” about the evidence.

Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains, such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin.

Australopithecines are more different from both humans and apesthan they are from each other, so are a distinct type of creature. Some evolutionists reject them as human ancestors. Lucy was a knuckle walkerwhich did not walk like humans at all. Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK, and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution, performed CAT scans of austraopithecine inner ear canals, the organs of posture and balance .They showed that they did not walk habitually upright (Spoor, F. Wood, B. and Zonneveld, F.., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482); 645-648, 1994.

Many highly promoted human ancestors are now believed—by evolutionists—to be on a side branch (not human ancestors). This includes Zinjanthropus boisei and Australopithecus africanus.
I could say much more about other so-called intermediates of human evolution, , but I’m going to end here. See Jonathan Sarfati’s book: The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sigh…I’m not going to lie, if you continue to argue so poorly I’m just writing you off as a troll.  Because honestly, this might be entertaining if you were at least good at arguing.  There are people on this site who I disagree with and debate with and enjoy hearing from.  Hell, I don’t claim to agree with everything Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins says.  Their claims, just like everyone else’s, have to be backed by the merit of their arguments.  You apparently have no idea how to argue.  You throw random citations on a page and call it research.  There’s no corollary to be found here.  You’re wasting everybody’s time.

Firstly, I said MODERN MEDICAL science…the first list barely includes anyone even ALIVE in the 20th century and yes, I’ll concede that physics and thermaldynamics have little to do with evolution, though I really didn’t see the need to specify that much.  In any case, I already gave you the most prominent example.  Everything we know about cancer is due to research into or involving evolution.  That’s just a fact.  And as I mentioned, you don’t even have to look that far.  In each of your cells there’s a little pod called a mitochondria which can be dated back to early protozoan bacterium.  That’s right, your cells themselves evolved.  Long ago there was a single celled organism that found it can much more efficiently process and synthesize protiens if it enveloped another this other single cell organism and get it to do it’s work for it.  Secondly, just because you don’t accept it doesn’t mean you don’t live by its rules.  As I mentioned, you can choose to ignore that gravity is a function of mass but I doubt you’ll catch any lift with those wings.  You claim all these people created these things independent of the concept of evolution.  For example: the Wright Brothers as creationists making the plane based on gods design of a bird.  But if it was evolution that actually created the bird it would mean that they were actually inspired by evolution and just weren’t aware.  Completely removing god from this equation wouldn’t make their research any less valid, just means that they found the wrong approach but got the right conclusion.  Really not that hard to do, happens all the time.  Again, you don’t have to be aware something exists to have it affect you, or even live by its rules (see gravity).  Moreover, claiming that these people were believers proves even less.  Of course they were believers, EVERYONE WAS!  In fact, the mere act of not believing for MOST of history and arguably still is today, was PUNISHABLE BY DEATH!!!  The romans believed in all sorts of gods and built one of the greatest and longest lasting civilizations ever recorded on earth.  So why then do you so easily dismiss Zeus as your creator?  When did you first cast Poesidon away as the whimsical delusions of fools?  How have gotten so far without paying homage to Ares, or Hades, or Athena, Ra, Horus, Thor, Odin, Loki, Baal…the list goes on.  Millions of brilliant people believed in all sorts of gods that you wouldn’t even consider a possibility in todays world.  Hell, Einstien didn’t believe in socks!!  The analogy you’re trying to make there doesn’t work and quite frankly is probably the stupidest arguement I’ve ever heard in my life.  Its like saying apples are red, so they must be able to fly.  In no way does their believing in or even being “inspired” by a god prove that he exists.  You believe in god right?  Do you know what 2+2 equals?  Now tell me, how would that suggest that god exists?  Because that’s what you’re arguing, that these concepts are even remotely related.  It literally infurates me that you would even try to use that as any kind of litmus to the legitimacy of your arguement.  And furthermore, nothing says DNA, or anything for that matter generates randomly.  If you knew anything about the synthesizing of DNA you wouldn’t dare make such a bold claim.  But where as SCIENCE is trying to figure out how these things occured and transpired, RELIGION stands alone, claiming answers to problems it couldn’t possibly know and WASN’T EVEN THERE FOR!!!  Christianity is NOT that old!  But I digress.  Fact, pure and simple is you still haven’t been able to refute my cause rationally.  I’ve read several books from people claiming to refute evolution and found them pedantic and once again lacking in substance.  They’ll call something false and then back it up with feelings.  Saying, I don’t like the concept of the Neanderthal being a predecesor to modern man but giving no reason why it’s not true, as you have yet to do here.  You claim its still considered homo-sapien.  Well you’re just wrong, it’s actually an extinct species of homo-genus classified as homo-neanderthalensis.  And choosing not to accept the evidence without any evidence that it was somehow doctored is the equivalent of calling a red wall blue.  I can give you a million reasons why the color is red, citing popular consensus, quotes and even explaining how the reflected wavelengths of light interpreted by your mind represent a color we call red…and you can simply say no.  Which is pretty much your arguement.  You haven’t proved anything.  You just say no, like a child who can’t accept he might be wrong about something.  None of what you mentioned is even a slightly viable arguement for the existance of a devine creator or even legitimate arguement against my claims that he doesn’t exist.  You just managed to prove that there are holes in the theory of evolution, as I straight-out admitted.  As far as I can tell, Wendy Wright lost the arguement.  Just because she didn’t follow through to find the evidence doesn’t mean its not there.  He even told her where she can find the originals, she just doesn’t want to.  And I find it funny that you talk about “stories” about the evidence, because that is LITERALLY ALL YOU HAVE!!!  One book of ridiculous stories.  A book which claims some guy can put is stick in the water and magically part the sea!!  Evolution has thousands of books AND tangible evidence AND can be explained in a way that makes sense to anyone who will listen.  You claim it’s not sufficient.  Well its still a million times more credible than the bible.  So when you claim that the australpithecines were a side branch of another species it still proves that evolution is occuring.  The term “branch” suggests that in and of itself.  But I suppose you’re not actually arguing that evolution doesn’t happen, but that we are somehow special and therefore immune to the process every other species in the world has undergone.  I mean, I have to assume that’s what you meant by that because suggesting that one species is in some way related to another species is literally the definition of evolution.  But we humans are too good to partake in such barbaric rituals, right? Remember what I said about egocentrism?  You can’t even argue without actually further supporting MY arguement.  Simply stuffing random quotes, figures and statistics into your writing may’ve looked impressive in the fifth grade, probably got you an A on your first paper, but if they don’t support your arguement they’re veridically worthless.  I really hope you’re not a teacher because if this is how you go about gathering evidence I’d hate to see a new generation hoping to take on the world with the tools of rationality you have at your disposal.

But yes, you’re right…it does take alot more faith to believe something you obviously know nothing about.  It will always be harder to continue learning rather than to blindly accept the same thing you were taught since you were born.  Having to judge for yourself the concepts of right and wrong.  It can be hard to cope with the notion that this life may be all you get, and that you may have to work hard to make it better.  Having to take responsibility for your own actions without the blind promise that someone more important will instantly forgive your trespasses if at heart you’re a “good person,” whatever the hell that means.  I truly do understand, it would be so much easier if they had all the answers I need conveniently in one book, because life in the big bad universe is too hard.  Seriously, grow up.  Nothing in life could and/or should EVER be that simple.  I would literally HATE life if it ever was and I can’t understand for the life of me how you could be so incredibly dull that you’d be okay with it either.  I mean, at the very least you have to admit that the bible was never meant to be taken literally, right?  That already makes it fiction.  Now it’s only a matter of where you draw the line.  Do you pick and choose what actually did happen, or do you do the rational thing and see that since nothing in the book has any real evidence supporting that it ever actually happened there’s no real reason to believe any of it.  Personally, I like the bible.  I find its imagery compelling and for its time it was particularly well written.  But there’s no way any of it ever happened.  And I could go on citing how it was plagerized and demonstrate political motivations behind its conception.  I could take every one of your “points” and demonstrate how it’s either not proving anything or, more likely, actually proving my points, but you’ve already conceded that you don’t particularly care for facts.  Not unless they can be twisted to serve your purpose.  And even then they don’t do it all that well. 

Bottom line is this, and this mind you is the only reason I have a problem with religion at all.  You can have it, I actually support you believing as long as you’re aware it has no relevance in the real world and therefore should be kept to yourself.  The fact is, the scientific method is the procedure through which we, as humans, have had the most success in any of our endeavors.  It goes observation, hypothesis, TEST, and conclusion.  Religion has had its run, and people have been able to make some fairly accurate assessments using it.  But this is mostly luck and was bound to happen.  Why?  Because where as religion often does involve observation and then even goes to build varying hypothesis somewhat loosely based on those observations, where it fails is that it doesn’t stand to any test.  It never has.  In fact, it’s largely considered a sin to test it at all.  Not that it matters, because you couldn’t concievably ever come up with a test that would prove the existence of an all powerful diety of any kind.  The concept in and of itself is somewhat contradictory.  Your greatest arguement is that I can’t disprove it, but by your logic you can’t disprove anything.  I can very well say that fairies exist, and give you a list of circumstances you wouldn’t be able to test to support their legitimacy.  I could theoretically do that with anything I want at any time.  It doesn’t make it anything more than my own fanciful delusions.  And unless I can test it, I could never in good conscience consider it reliable or even legitimate, and therefore couldn’t use it for anything, making it worthless in every way.  So you see, even if by some far extreme stretch you happen to be right (I’m talking hell freezing over, pigs growing wings overnight, etc.), it wouldn’t matter.  Not until you could test it.  All it does is make you feel better…which is fine.  But it doesn’t go any further than that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Your emotional rants and ravings (so typical) merely confirm to me what atheists and skeptics do best when confronted with real evidence—they make even more ridiculous assumptions and unsupported assertions and suddenly become experts on religion and seek to explain to the world what we Christians believe from the standpoint of their evolutionary philosophy. Oh well, at least it tells me you are human after all and, unlike your assumed evolutionary ancestors,  are not merely dancing to your DNA, as Richard Dawkins believes.

“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Rayburne,

Answer my question.  Can your “ALL-Powerful” god make a stone he then cannot lift? 

I will refuse to entertain your claim to be a true believer without some attempt to answer this question, which should be easy for you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

and you continue to prove my original thesis, that you can’t support any of your claims with actual evidence.  But you’re right, I do tend to get emotional.  I don’t see it as a vice that I have passion for what I believe, nor do I find it a fault to be proud of who I am.  Maybe if you could match my enthusiasm when trying to support your claims you’re arguments could be taken somewhat seriously.  But as they are, they’re worse than rants and raves, just nonsensible gibberish.  But while we’re sharing the word you should be careful to head the advice of your own scriptures.  A little Matthew 7:1 anybody?

judge not that ye not be judged

(and that’s just off the top of my head)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

actually, in retrospect, I can sort of see your arguement…well the last one.  Perhaps I came off a bit rash but once again, see nothing wrong with having passion for the truth.  Now, perhaps you do feel the same, but as it stands nothing you’ve said is even an arguement against evolution.  For example, citing that scientists existed who’s discoveries came before the original discovery of evolution proves nothing.  I can’t see how you could possibly claim that, there were scientists living and making discoveries since the dawn of mankind as far as anyone can tell but none of their held beliefs serve to discredit any discoveries held thereafter. So as I mentioned, your list is completely irrelevant.  You then mentioned this Wendy Wright, who’s only point is that she refuses to believe the evidence is evidence.  Which I can understand, and always support a level of skepticism.  But its not like there’s only one fossil in existence supporting the claims of evolution.  What you’re essentially suggesting is that there’s some worldwide conspiracy where everyone’s somehow doctored essentially the same results.  What purpose would that serve?  As is, the United states allocates less than 1% of its national budget to non-weapons based research.  To me that just sounds paranoid.  And as I mentioned, it doesn’t take much to disagree with evidence.  You can simply say no, and that’s essentially all she’s done.  She’s found no evidence to suggest that it isn’t true, she just doesn’t want to believe it.  Which is fine, but bares no relevancy to the truth.  So again, what is it exactly that you’re trying to prove?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This post is for those readers out there who are genuinely interested in the actual evidence (or lack of same) in the fossil record for human evolution. It is based on chapter 9 (“Ape-Men”?) of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s book The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution (A response to Dawkins’ book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution). In chapter 9 (“APE-MEN”?)  Dr. Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry,  a former evolutionist researcher , addresses the strongest arguments Dawkins could muster for human evolution and, with an astonishing array of scientific references (I.e, published works and reviewed papers mainly by evolutionists), and on the basis of the actual evidence in the fossil record,  exposes the shallowness in Dawkins’ reasoning and the absurdities of his claims to demonstrate why they are far from being an ‘unanswerable challenge’ and why evolution is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the guise of reason and science. Now, please note I specifically indicated that Dr. Sarfati, in his response to Dawkins’ arguments, point by point, on human evolution, included in the actual evidence published works and reviewed papers mainly by evolutionists themselves , so if readers want to discuss/engage Dr. Sarfati’s points (I am not interested in a debate), please do so directly and with regard to the published works and papers by evolutionists that Dr. Sarfati states in chapter 9 (“APE-MEN”?), as cited in this post (not by referring the reader to discussions on some atheist or evolutionist website (I.e ‘Talk-Origins”), which is all too common and not my idea of evidence. I hope it is not yours either.

Just as Wendy Wright, though not a scientist, can tell the difference between real “evidence’ and “stories about evidence,” so Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who is a scientist (Ph.D.  in physical chemistry, a respected researcher who has co-authored various technical papers on such things as high temperature superconductors ) has exposed the shallowness in evolutionists’ thinking and claims about fossil evidence, which is often based on fragmentary remains. In his book The Greatest Hoax on Earth: refuting Dawkins on Evolution (a response to Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth; The Evidence for Evolution’), Sarfati (following the Dawkins-Wendy Wright interview) states:  “Another problem is that claims of intermediate fossils, both of ‘ape-men’ and other creatures, are often based on fragmentary fossil remains, while the museum puts them together and arranges them in an evolutionary scheme.” Let’s see if that assertion is true based on evidence. Time magazine reported on a specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated supposedly between 5.6 and 5.8 million years old. Time claimed that the specimen was already walking upright, at (what they claim was) the dawn of human evolution: But unlike a chimp or any of the modern apes that ample along on four limbs, kadabba almost certainly walked upright much of the time. The inch-long toe bone makes that clear” (Lemonick, M.D., Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Mankind, Time magazine cover story, 23 July 2001).

Dawkins claimed on much the same lines:

“There are few , albeit rather fragmentary traces, Ardipithecus , which lived 4-5 million years ago, is known mainly from teeth, but enough cranial and foot bones have been found to suggest, at least to most anatomists who have attended to it, that it walked upright” (page 204 of “The Greatest Show”).

But how clear is this really? Time also reports the opinion of the discoverer of “Lucy”, Donald Johanson: “Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million-year-old toe bone with the rest of the fossils: not only is it separated in time from by several hundred thousand years, but it was found some 10 miles away from the rest ( Lemonik, M.D., and Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Man, Time magazine cover, 23 July, 2001).

Note carefully that this toe was the major “evidence” for uprightness, yet, at being found 10 miles away , it boggles the mind how it could be regarded as part of the same specimen! As one researcher put it regarding the fossils and human evolution,  “Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear “ (Shreeve, J. Argument over a woman, Discover 11(8) : 58, 1990. When the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic.

Some of the fossils Dawkins mentions are based on flimsier evidence, such as Orrorin tugenensis or the ‘Millenium Man” (p. 204 of The Greatest Show) , based on 13 fossil fragments comprising broken femurs, jaw bones and teeth. Another very ‘old’ ape-man, Sahelanthropus tchadensis or ‘Toumai’ (p. 204) might have been a gorilla (Chalmers, J., Seven million-year-old skull ‘just a female gorilla’, The Sun-Herald (Sydney), 14 July, 2002) and is rejected as a human ancestor by leading evolutionists (Wolpoff, M. et al, Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’? Nature 419 (6907): 581- 582, 2002).

Dawkins says about these last two:

“Other palaeoanthropologists are sceptical of the claims of bipedality that have been made on behalf of Orrorin and Sahelanthropus by their discoverers. And as a cynic might note, for each such problematic fossil some of the doubters include the discovers of others! (p.204).

And I might note that all the doubters are right-humans didn’t evolve from any of these, because they did not involve, full stop.

Many exhibits of “human evolution” once shown are no longer regarded as human ancestors (not including the obvious ones like Nebraska Man [based on a single tooth of an extinct pig] and Piltdown man [ turned out to be a hoax]).

Many highly promoted ‘human ancestors’ are now believed-by evolutionists-to be on a side branch not leading to man (not human ancestors). These include Zinjanthropus boisei (‘Nutcracker Man’), completely discounted today as a human ancestor, and Ramapithecus, now thought to be a variety of orangutan.

This applies to many other alleged missing links. Evolutionist Derek Ager admits: “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/ Gryphaea to Carruther’s Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been “debunked’ . Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive” ( Ager, D. V., The nature of the fossil record, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 87 (2): 131-160, 1976.

Museums once featured Australopithecus africanus as an ancestor to humans. Donald Johanson, the discoverer of “Lucy” places Australopithecus africanus in a side branch not leading to man (not a human ancestor), and many museums have now demoted this once certain ancestor to a non-ancestor.

One famous fossil find was “Java Man’, now called Homo erectus, but named by its discoverer, Dutch anthropologist Eugene Dubois (1858-1940) as Pithecanthropus erectus, which meant ‘erect ape-man,’ showing that Dubois thought he had found the missing link between man and apes.

However, Homo erectus was just a variety of real human. This was shown by the morphological analysis of various traits, which are all human except supposedly for the intermediate brain size . But even in this trait, their cranial fault size overlapped with that of modern humans, as Dubois admitted. Contrary to Dubois’ claim it was shown to have a ‘strikingly modern feature’ (Gibbons, A., Java skull offers new view of Homo erectus, Science 299 (5611): 1293, 28 Feb. 2003). The paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman of Harvard University said: “This is an important find because it is the first H. erectus find with a reasonably complete cranial base, and it looks modern” (same as above).

Of course, Lieberman would see H. erectus as a human ancestor , but the evidence is consistent with H. erectus being just a variant of the human created kind. And as recently as 2001, Wolpoff et al. showed that the features of various human skulls indicated there must have been interbreeding among ‘modern looking Homo sapiens and Neanderthalls and even Homo erectus ( Wolpoff, M., et al. Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: A test of the replacement theory, Science 291 (5502): 293-297, 12 January 2001; comments by Pennisi, E., p. 231, skull study targets Africa-only origins).

The cultural abilities of H. erectus are also strong evidence of their humanity. They even had evidence of seafaring skills! This was shown by butchered elephant bones on a small Indonesian island , too small and resource poor to sustain a settlement , with tools and dating that identify ‘Homo erectus’ as the only candidate (in evolutionists’ minds) for the butcher, but the island had to be reached by quite a stretch of deep water ( New Scientist 157 (2125):6, 14 March 1998; based on Morwood et al., Ref. 41.; Morwood, P. B. et al., Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores, Nature 392 ( 6672): 173-176, 12 March 1998). Thus, there must have been migration of H. erectus from island to island , across straits ranging in size from several kilometres to a few tens of kilometres, and quite deep water. The islands involved included Lombok, Bali, Sumbawa, and Flores ( Bednarik, R.G., Hobman, B. and Rogers, P. , Nale Tasih 2: journey of a Middle Palaeolithic raft, Int. J. Nautical Archaeology 28 (1): 25-33, 1999). Clearly, H. erectus must have crossed the straits that separate the islands, and this implies at least some seafaring ability. And according to conventional dates, this happened some 800,000 years ago. The original researcher wrote:

“Furthermore, they [our findings] indicate that, somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago, Homo erectus in this region had acquired the capacity to make water crossings” ( Bednarik, R.G., Hobman, B. and Rogers, P., journey of a Middle Palaeolithetic raft… (reference same as above).

The seafaring skills of H. erectus were also highlighted by the noted “multi-regional’ advocate Wolpoff as support for his views. Interestingly, the ardent ‘out of Africa’ advocate Chris Stringer said that these seafaring skills would be evidence that H. erectus ‘was more human’, just like us. ’ Indeed. 

Humans are distinct from the australopithecines.

Dr. Sarfati continues: If these creatures had been the evolutionary transitional series that Dawkins claims, gradually progressing from australopithecines to modern Homo sapiens, many of the entries (see Table 7 by evolutionists Wood and Collard in; Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284 (5411): 65-71, 1999) would be intermediate. In fact, it’s even worse for evolutionists—these creatures (H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, H. ergaster, H.erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis)  don’t even qualify as a mosaic of australopithecine and Homo sapiens attributes. The different creatures do not increase in number of human traits in this line toward modern man. Rather, the six constellations of traits (body size, body shape, locomotion, jaws and teeth, development, brain size) are either almost always all-human or all-australopithecine. Thus the data show that humans are distinct from ape-like creatures such as the australopithecines , as shown by the analysis of a number of characteristics/traits (Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411): 65-71, 1999). This indicates that Homo ergaster, H.erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis , were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man. Conversely, many specimens classified as H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. For some years now, many evolutionist specialists have agreed that H. habilis ( ‘Handy Man’), one of Dawkins’ favourites in his above dialogue, was probably always a phantom taxon with fossils belonging to both H.erectus/ergaster and Australopithecus thrown together into this “taxonomic wastebin.” This expression was used in an interview with Dr. Fred Spoor, a Dutch-born paleoanthropologist in the UK, and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution ( Interview on The Image of God DVD, Keziah Productions).

The assignments by the evolutionists Wood and Collard (see Table 7 by evolutionists Wood and Collard in: Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284 (5411): 65-71, 1999) match those of the slightly earlier ones by creationist paleoanthropologist Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, research fellow at the Institute for Anthropology and Human Genetics, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany. She concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type ( created kind), Homininae. But she assigned to another basic type, Australopithecine, the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei, and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus ( Hartwig-Scherer, S., Apes or ancestors? Chapter 9 of Dembski , Wm. A., Mere Creation: Science, faith and intelligent design, Downers Grove, Il., 1998).

Note, the above also matches antomist Charles Oxnard’s earlier multivariate analysis of different bones of australopithecines, an objective analysis from which he concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and that the australopithecine fossils: “clearly differ more from both humans and African apes , than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique” ( Oxnard, C.E., in Fossils, Sex and Teeth-New Perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, p. 227, 1987. NOTE, Oxnard was Professor of anatomy and Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California, professor of Human Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, had previously concluded much the same thing in an earlier paper, The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature 258; 389-395, 4 December 1975).

Since creationists have long cited Oxnard, it shows that Dawkins is wrong to say, “If creationist apologists are right, Australopithecus is ‘just an ape’. Rather, although the name means ‘Southern Ape’ (p. 204 of Greatest Show on Earth, that is not what Oxnard said; he made it clear that Australopithecus was not transitional between apes and humans. More recently, Oxnard made the following comments about the australopithecines:

“It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in arboreal (tree environments) , and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous [living at the same time] or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo” ( Oxnard, C. E., The Order of Man, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1984).

Further, Oxnard showed that the big toe of the famous “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) stuck out as in chimpanzees. Also, Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College, London, UK, and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution, performed CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals, the organs of posture and balance, which showed that they did walk habitually upright” ( Spoor, F., Wood, B., and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 ( 6482):645-648, 1994).

This is all contrary to Dawkins’ claim that Lucy “walked upright on her hind legs, as we do..on two feet which were pretty much like ours although its brain was the size of a chimpanzee’s” (Page 188-189 of The Greatest Show..). Indeed, evidence now suggests that Lucy had wrist-locking abilities “classic for knuckle walkers,” which is hardly consistent with Dawkins’ claim that Lucy walked upright like we do” ( Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287 (5461): 2131-, 2000, citing the first author of Richmond, B. G., and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404 (6776): 382, 2000).

Finally, Dr. James Allan, Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, concludes that at least 150 billion forerunners of “modern man” would have been required by evolution in order for natural selection to have taken place in the development of man from an assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee. Dr. Sarfati deals also with highly popularized non-human fossils claimed to be intermediate (I.e. curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik, which had a mixture of feastures, not in-between ones. Archaeopteryx had fully formed bird wings, perching claws, and a unique lung design. The ‘earliest bats’ pterosaurs and bats were fully formed fliers. Further more, the ‘earliest bats had fully-developed echolocation. Many more, but this is another discussion or issue. Our main concern for now is the evidence (or lack of same), for human evolution.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main population, and that most change happened in this small group which can lead to allopathic speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species. So there is nothing in the evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It is important to note that allopathic speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speculated) at babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin colour. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying, “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today”?

So what’s the difference between the creation explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing genetic information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of ‘new’ information—which poses an enormous problem for the evolutionist because goo-to-you requires the type of change that results in information-increasing change, not loss of information through sorting and mutation (even in beneficial mutations), as has been mainly observed.

It should be clear by now that the argument is not so much about the ‘facts’, but how they are interpreted, especially when it comes to the unobserved past history of our planet and its biota, including humanity (what is known as historical or origins science). So naturally evolutionists who interpret the evidence through the lens of the evolutionary paradigm or world view will draw different conclusions that scientists who interpret the same evidence or data through the lens of biblical creation. But to any honest inquirer who is willing to examine all the evidence objectively and fairly, there is much reason for confidence that the Bible’s big picture of history can more than stand , in fair and open debate, against the best that secularism can provide.

Finally, after examining the actual evidence (or lack of same) for human evolution, it is fair to say: “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I would not like to be the one to tell biblical creationist Raymond Damadian, inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Scanner and John Sanford, the genetic engineer who invented the “gene gun” (both who I doubt are members of the National Academy of Science) that they do not possess as much natural curiosity and talent as those who are not biblical creationists (i.e. evolutionists) and do not believe in God. As for attributing scientific progress to a belief in naturalistic evolution, Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard medical School stated:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all”.
The leading chemist Philip Sknell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, echoed similar thoughts in a column he wrote for “The Scientist’:
“Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple; Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectots and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behaviour, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery” (Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005).

Let ‘s look at the so-called contributions of evolution over the last two centuries.

18th AND 19th CENTURY EVOLUTIONISTS
And now we will view the armchair philosophers. Hardly one of them ever set foot in field research or entered the door of a science laboratory, yet they founded the modern theory of evolution:

*Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a do-nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.

*Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.

*Jean-Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, with his concept of “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book, Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet, you will gradually increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science?

*Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide Flood or other great catastrophes.
*Robert Chambers (1802-1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before *Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species.

*Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Like *Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830-1833; and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata,—even though 20th-century discoveries in radiodating, radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory.
In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven-mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about 3 feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three-foot erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7000 to 9000 years,—and it would be expected that, just after the Flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, Origin of the Species.

*Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which *Darwin published. *Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper, which *Darwin, with the help of two friends (*Charles Lyell and *Joseph Hooker), pirated and published under his own name. *Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty-ridden theorist. In 1980, *Arnold C. Brackman, in his book, A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society, in London, while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book.
In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. This was Wallace’s theory: Species have changed in the past, by which one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today. That is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet it has no more evidence supporting the theory than Wallace had in 1858, when he devised the theory while in a fever.
In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea, “survival of the fittest,” as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.
In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his Origin of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that “survival of the fittest” was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned “natural selection” as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
But an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid “naturalist” on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.
It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England. Yet the birds were all essentially alike, and consisted of sub-species of an original pair.
Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his children became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)
His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind.
In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.
Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:
• Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was “only an abstract,” and “a fuller edition” would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
• When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: “It might have been,” “Maybe,” “probably,” “it is conceivable that.” A favorite of his was: “Let us take an imaginary example.”
• Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: “As we have already demonstrated previously.” Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
• He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.
Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin had very little science instruction.
Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of *Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (*W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)
After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered” (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy” (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

On that last note, I think Mr. Darwin was far more honest than most evolutionists today.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

okay a little better…you see, this is actually debating your thesis and therefore significantly less likely to provoke outrage in my part, and I gathered that from reading only your first few sentences.  Granted, you still seem to be of the opinion that whatever someone believed at the point of a discovery has any relevancy on the truth of their discovery, which is simply untrue.  Granted, their credibility may come into question, but that’s what evidence is for.  I’ll take one of your examples:  Emmanuel Swedenborg may very well have been a complete crock, but the fact is we now how telescopes and satalites able to see and image nebulas in far away galaxies and even our own.  Now you can claim not to believe that evidence as well, but once again, there’s no proving to a child that red is in fact red if he wants to believe it is blue.  We can take you to a telescope and have you see for yourself and you can say it is, again, somehow doctored.  We can explain to you the physics and have you build one of your own to see the exact same thing and you can just say its magic or some type of conpiracy.  I could site links and books till I’m blue in the face but it would do me no good, and I’ve already resigned to this fact.  If you are in fact completely decided that evolution is untrue there is nothing anyone could do to change that, not even if you were to watch it transpire before your eyes.  You’ll probably say it’s the same thing for us atheist, especially given my resistance to your arguements (though I’ll explain shortly why I can still find evolution a more logical explaination for our existence here), but I can assure you if you were to present even one credible arguement for the existence of any supernatural diety I would at least consider it.  A lack of belief in evolution would not, in any way, suggest that there is any sort of supernatural being shaping our universe or even suggest that there is any sense of order to it.  There are a million other explainations for how we have come to exist and I wouldn’t settle for any of them without some sort of proof of their validity. 

And this point essentially sums up the arguement.  Now, you aren’t denying these are actual fossils of bones right? Regardless of what they actually fossils of, they’ve been dated back to significanlty before when the bible claims the earth originated.  Now you’ll claim that one day for god is actually longer than a day for us or find some sort of rationale for it, but what that suggests to me is that the book is essentially a metaphor, a position I’m sure you’d agree with.  The things in the bible aren’t meant to be taken literally, and I feel every practically christain today now agrees with this.  But a book that’s a metaphor is essentially a book that isn’t true.  A metaphor of just about any kind can be interpreted any way a reader chooses to interpret it, and a metaphor as broad and violent as the bible posits can lead to some dangerous interpretations.

That being said, it seems you’re only promoting skepticism in evolution, not actual disproof.  As I mentioned, reading through your notes above I didn’t find you once mention that they weren’t in fact bones, just that they may not be evolutionary links to ourselves, and you’ve seemed to have found some rather compelling arguements as to why they might not be.  I think in one case you mention they found a toe bone 10 miles away from the original site of the fossils.  Well to be honest, we don’t know what happened to said person that lead to his untimely demise.  It could very well be a fossil of another species, then again, he could’ve be lying there for some time and some scavenger bird picked off his toe and flew away and dropped it for some reason 10 miles away.  And that’s just off the top of my head.  We don’t know all the answers but we at least are actively seeking them, and are generally unconcerned that we may never find them all because we know that everything we do know can help to progress our kind.  Now, I most certainly promote skepticism, especially even in the case of facts because its only with a healthy level of skepticism that we can ever find the whole truth.  However, given the “evidence,” or even the lack there of in your opinion, what is more likely to be found true:  a baseless opinion with no evidence supporting it but a book that contradicts itself over and over, with no explaination why (in fact, the bible does nothing to answer any questions of life in my opinion, but, instead, does plenty to inspire more questions).  A book which not only shows many signs of plagerism, but who’s historical account is incongruent with much of what we know to have happened in the past and had many possible political ties which are debatably still in service today, while propogating various whims of fanciful delights much of which could not have been phyiscally possible based soley on the laws of physics you live by each day.  One which, mind you, also happened to originate back when people weren’t intelligent enough not to eat where they pooped?  Is that the logical opinion to believe, or one for which more evidence is being found every day?  I found this just today searching the news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44438221/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Now, to me, any theory supported by evidence is better than one that isn’t, even if said evidence only serves to disprove the original thesis.  This reasoning alone is enough justification to pursue evolution further.  If after all is said and done, evolution is proven a hoax, we would still be closer to finding the truth than blindly following religion in that we’ve eliminated one of the possible explainations of our existence.  But if it is found to be true (something I’m somewhat already convinced of I’ll admit) the possibilities are endless.  The possiblities as far as religion are concerned are somewhat limited to what your god will allow, a fact I am not so eager to accept (call it pride, avarice, whatever…but I will not be swayed on this).  So in that sense alone, evolution serves as a better candidate for research than religion, for which no evidence has ever been brought for (or in your opinion against, though I find that extremely debatable) and which we till continue to find no evidence for (or, again, against).  In my opinion, religion only helps to provide more questions: if god created the universe, what created god?  He always existed?  Then what’s the difference between that and saying that the universe always existed?  In essence, any theory that cannot be proven or disproven is veridically useless, a statement you somewhat reflected in quoting Philip Sknell, “Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple; Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behaviour, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery”.  The problem with this is that it is not difficult to test evolution.  It is being tested every day and even the questions you’ve presented will be addressed (though probably not by myself in that I’ll concede that my knowledge of the full extent to which evolution occurs is somewhat limited to a broad overview).  It just seems more likely that they’ll be settled in favor of evolution than against at this point.  However, if in fact you were to come up with a more rational explaination for our existence on this planet and verify that with some sort of evidence it is likely that the theory of evolution will be thrown out completely.  But this is not what anyone is even attempting to do, and this constant resistance to the true pursuit of knowledge is only going to prove detrimental to our existence on this planet.  Fact, believing in god can do nothing to cure cancer, solve world hunger, fix global warming (which, for the record does exist, and the concept of it being man-made is somewhat irrelevant), and this should be obvious because if it could it would have been done by now.  Science has gone about systematically solving several problems:  we didn’t like smallpox, we created a vaccine; we wanted to travel large distances, we created the car, the locomotive, the plane;  we wanted to see the cosmos, we created rockets and satellites and even a space station.  It seems logical to assume that it will continue to do so in the future.  Although there are many nice and virtuous religious people who give to charities or donate their time to help the needy (though its often with some sort of a catch and somewhat debatable that they needed religion to do so, either), essentially all I’ve seen religion do is cause war and have people sell short their potential.  I see no reason why we, each and every one of us, can’t be gods…and I quite frankly do not care how blasphemous that sounds.  But for the record, I can’t remember what scripture it was but I believe that it was your own saviour who said that “these deeds I do, you can do yourselves” (paraphrased).

In any case, as I mentioned, if you feel unconvinced by the evidence I wouldn’t even dream of changing your mind.  I would actually never hope to do away with religion as a whole because I enjoy the literature, the mythology, and various other artistic endeavours inspired by the religious.  But I have also, unfortunately, found that as a whole religion has lost the sense of humility it once treasured so much.  But once again, you haven’t found any reason not to believe in evolution, just reasons to be skeptical, a position I’ve already mentioned I’m in full support of.  But to claim something with evidence is untrue without really providing any real evidence that it is, and then to, furthermore, provide no evidence of any other claim, is essentially useless.  It gets nobody anywhere.  You say we didn’t evolve to get here, well then tell me how we did?  Give me anything and we can look further into it, maybe find some evidence you will believe.  But you’ll have to be a little more creative than saying “god did it,” that, to me is just lazy.  Nobody ever said any of this was a complete science.  As I mentioned there are holes in most every one of the even most basic sciences that you take for granted every day.  But when you compare the evidence for them to the evidence for any other theories it’s not even a competition.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Now, most of your skepticism stems from the fact that most of the fossils found a fragmented, which is somewhat biased but understandable.  Biased because the fact is, if someone claimed to have found fossil evidence of anything from so many millions of years ago still somehow in tact you’d be even more skeptical.  Understandable because it does leave room for error and therefore skepticism, which I’ll repeat, I’m all for.  But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the dilemma here once again, in that if you choose to be skeptical there’s really no amount of proof that will settle the debate for you.  It would be virtually impossible to find any piece of fossil evidence from that long ago that wasn’t fragmented to some degree.  So if that’s a fundamental basis of your arguement, you are simply resigning not to be convinced.  This type of mentality isn’t really condusive to an argument.  I already mentioned that I’d almost be eager to be swayed, if in fact there was even the slightest evidence that some sort of diety has ever existed.  Thus far you’ve only provided evidence to be only slightly skeptical of evolution.  The fact is, most athiests would have a problem arguing the existence of god if in fact there was any sort of actual proof he existed, in that true athiests base their arguements purely on reason.  Unfortunately, there is no such evidence.  The entire religious system is based entirely on faith.  So to say that you’re still skeptical when even in my last post I demonstrated that more proof is being found every day to support the theory on evolution, regardless of how flimsy you claim said evidence, is in and of itself proof of said bias.  In fact, flimsy evidence actually ceases to be flimsy when its accumulated in large quantities, and there are mounds of evidence supporting evolution.

Moreover, I notice on many occassions that you even somewhat agree that evolution occurs, if only not in ourselves.  Please, correct me if I’m wrong on your position in this, but you mention that many evolutionists today believe that most of these human like creatures of the past belong to a side branch not related to humans.  Granted, you’re quoting evolutionists, who’s opinions you don’t necessarily agree with, but if you agree that there are branching stages in various species then you believe in evolution.  This, in turn, would suggest that you feel that we are somehow special, which I can agree with only to the point that our brains are more developed, a fact easily explained by evolution.  But this concept alone isn’t all that spectacular in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, and it’s somewhat debatable that it can even be considered good.  Hardly handywork worthy of an omnipotent creator, especially when considering how sloppily our bodies are otherwise constructed.  I’ve already mentioned your tailbone, but what about your appendix.  It apparently serves no purpose other than to occasionally become infected and/or rupture and cause it’s owner incredible pain if not kill him/her.  Its hard to imagine such a design could have been divinely inspired, but this, once again, is easily explained by evolution as Joseph McCabe argued in The Story of Evolution:

The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.

You see, evolution serves to help explain things every day.  There are 37 different species of parrot.  37!!!  And most of them live inhabit the same relative area.  If divinely inspired, one might inquire if it was at all necessary to create 37 distinctly different yet incredibly similar versions of what is possibly the most annoying creature every witnessed.  One might venture to suggest they were created at the whim of a madman (thank you, Monty Python).  Yet evolution suggest that in the great experiment of life there may have been several more species of parrot, but that of them 37 were the most well equipped to survive.  This concept, in turn, also explains why we are able to find so many primitive creatures resembling both apes and mankind but so few that we can definitively suggest are actual ancestors of mankind.

Now, it seems what you have the most problem accepting is not that evolution occurs, but that one species cannot evolve into another.  But really, how much of a leap is that to make, especially if you already able to accept that evolution happens to some degree.  It should certainly be easier to swallow than the concept that all of our suffering and pain stems from some lady taking bad advice from a talking snake.  Or that every living creature is somehow decendant from any amount of creatures that some guy managed to scrounge up and shuffle onto a boat to survive a worldwide flood.  In any case, I think I’ve already made my position clear on just how poor an idea I feel it is to base your life today primarily on the teachings of people who lived so long ago that the concept of a lighter, or a pen, would seem like magic (or a miracle, depending on the circumstance) to them.  But to each their own I suppose.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am not impressed and you have not really said anything I (and many others) have heard before (i.e. “37 species of parrot”; yet all are parrots and members of the same kind (a created kind is far more than a modern species; “so many primitive creatures resembling both apes and mankind”? Where are they?). You ask “How much of a leap is that to make”? About as much as a chimpanzee painting a Mona Lisa, writing a Handels Messiah, or designing a rocket capable of taking man to the moon. To each his won I suppose, indeed!

You need to state clearly what you mean by evolution. We are not talking about whether or not changes occur through time (they do), about the size of the change or whether or not natural selection happens (it does), but rather the type of change required to change microbes into men——the type of changes that increase the genetic information content (information as specified complexity).The three billion DNA “letters” stored in each human cell nucleus (the “computer control room” where DNA is located and information is transferred from DNA to RNA) convey a great deal more information (known as “specified complexity”) than half a million DNA “letters” of the “simplest” self-reproducing organism. For instance, the DNA sequences in a “higher” organism, such as a human being or an horse, 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” to date provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. To claim that mere change proves that such information increasing change will occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he will sell them for a profit. The origin of information is an insurmountable problem for the general “microbes to man” theory of evolution. So far, all observed change is always in the direction of lower specificity (loss of genetic information). Today, there is even a specialized branch of information theory called bio-informatics—the study of biological information.

Informed ID theorists do not deny that copying mistakes (mutations) can be beneficial, by the natural definition that they help the organism. But in all known cases, they still add no new information. The best known example is sickle-cell anemia, a common blood disorder in which a mutation causes the sufferer’s haemoglobin to form the wrong shape and fail to carry oxygen. People who carry two copies of the sickle-cell gene (homozygous) develop fatal anemia. But this misshapen haemoglobin also resists the malaria parasite (Plasmodium). So humans who are heterozygous (have both a normal and abnormal gene) have some advantage in areas where malaria is prevalent , even though their haemoglobin is less effective at its job of carrying oxygen. Which is why Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahula, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia, a serious chronic and painful blood disorder, states, “Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ (fish to philosopher) is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as “proof” of evolution.” He points out that “the sickle-cell gene is still a defect (an inherited random change or mutation), not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for.. and having more carriers of the sickle-cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease. He concludes that science would be far better served by scientists working on “factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts”

.Dr. John K.G. Kramer, formerly associate editor of the scientific journal LIPIDS (Ph.D. in biochemistry), completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as an NRC fellow at the university of Ottawa. He has identified, characterized, and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He states, “No one has ever demonstrated macro evolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet, many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man. If macroevolution is unlikely on a molecular level, how can the whole be changed? Endless DNA sequence comparisons do not explain evolutionary development.
Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominately disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity.

There are other examples, such as wingless beetles that survive on windy islands because they can’t fly, so won’t be blown into the sea, and animals in dark caves with shrivelled eyes that are less prone to damage. And one way that the Straphylococcus bacterium becomes resistant to penicillin is via a mutation that disables a control gene for production of penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin. When it has this mutation, the bacterium over-produces this enzyme, which means it is resistant to even huge amounts of penicillin. But in the wild, this mutant bacterium is less fit, because it squanders resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase
Still another example is a cattle breed called the Belgian Blue. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it has 20-30 percent more muscle than average cattle, and its meat is lower in fat and very tender. Normally, muscle growth is regulated by a number of proteins, such as myostatin. However, Belgian Blues have a mutation that deactivates the myostatin gene, so the muscles grow uncontrolled and become very large. This mutation has a cost, in reduced fertility. A different mutation of the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese cattle. In all these cases, a mutation causes information loss (reduced specified complexity), even though it is “beneficial.” Therefore, it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, which requires the generation of new information. In the case of sickle-cell anemia, ID theorists would say that the sickle-cell gene is a change in the direction of loss of specificity (genetic information) which can confer immunity to malaria; in other words, an information loss that’s beneficial.

As I have indicated, “microbes-to-man, from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution requires changes that increase specific complexity or genetic information, therefore not simply any old change is evolution. Further, so far, all observed change is always in the direction of lower specificity (loss of information). And even if the occasional information-increasing change in the sense of specificity were found, it would not confirm that “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution has a viable mechanism, since this would predict many such changes to be observed. So while there are beneficial changes, none have increased information in the sense of specificity, as general “microbes to man” evolution requires.

There is not one example of a genetic mutation (as Richard Dawkins well knows) that has increased the information in the genome of an individual or organism. Natural selection and mutations which account for adaptability and genetic variations within species (creation allows for same) always result in loss of genetic information, so that it does not matter how much time (millions or billions or trillions) of years one allows for vertical molecules-to-man evolution to take place, it will never produce the kind of change Darwin proposed—from one basically distinct kind to another (a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie) because such vertical or upward change from simple to complex requires an increase in genetic information in the genome, not a loss of information. Moreover, recent discoveries reveal DNA to be far more complex than neo-Darwinism ever dreamed. Scientists have even discovered that there is not only “data” contained in DNA, but also layers of “meta-data”. The implications of this are profound for the creation/evolution debate because if true, the case for explaining neo-Darwinian evolution just became orders of magnitude more difficult.

It is time for us to stop teaching ( brainwashing is more accurate) our school children with this “Frog to prince, fairly tale for grownups.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You talk a lot about evidence ; yet I have yet to see examples of real evidence to support your numerous assertions, preferably without ad hominem attacks on my faith and person.. How much of a leap is it to make from microevolutionary change to macroevolutionary change? Due to time and space, I will let Dr. William Lane Craig answer that from his response to an inquirer concerning the enormous limitations of GTE and the so-called evolutionary tree. ( I have already given my answer above).I trust that is acceptable. I do not share Dr. Craig’s view of theistic evolution, however.

“The neo-Darwinian paradigm is a synthesis of two overarching theses: the Thesis of Common Ancestry and the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary development. The evidence for these two theses is anything but compelling; indeed, the theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges to conclusions far beyond the evidence. We know that in science such extrapolations often fail (take, for example, Albert Einstein’s failed attempt to extrapolate a general principle of relativity that would relativize acceleration and rotational motion just as his special principle had successfully relativized uniform motion). Such failures make very pressing the question: how do we know that the extrapolation from local instances of evolutionary development to the grand story of evolution is a valid one?

Let’s first get our terminology clear. Not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species! Certainly that’s not the way I was using the term, as should have been clear from the examples of evolutionary change which I considered. Microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry.

To give you a feel for the sort of extrapolation from evidence of microevolutionary change to macroevolutionary conclusions, consider the following chart, which displays some of the major phyla within the Animal Kingdom:

Notice that just the single phylum of the vertebrates (Chordata) includes all fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. Seen in the context of the wider picture, typical examples of evolutionary change are seen to be microevolutionary changes. The evolutionary development of whales, horses, and elephants you mention are trivialities compared to the grand scenario envisioned by the theory. The transition from lower primates to humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale.

You’ll remember my quoting Michael Denton to the effect that for a bat and a whale to have a common ancestor there should be literally millions of transitional forms, which are not there in the fossil record. But even that illustration obscures the fact of how trivial in the grand scheme of things such a development would be, for it would have taken place entirely within the class of Mammalia (mammals) in the phylum of Chordata. Even the evolution of amphibians from fish or birds from reptiles is miniscule compared to whole tree of life postulated by the theory, for it still only involves evolutionary development within a single phylum.

By contrast, what is the evidence that a bat and a sponge are descended via mutation and natural selection from a common ancestor? And now reflect that the above chart shows only some of the phyla within the Animal Kingdom, which is only a part of the domain of the Eukarya, which also includes the whole of the Plant Kingdom, and that in addition to the domain of the Eukarya we’ve also got the domains of the Bacteria and the Archaea to account for! Clearly we’re dealing with a mind-boggling extrapolation from limited instances of microevolutionary change to conclusions that far outstrip the evidence. Caution certainly seems appropriate here.
So consider now your objections to my presentation. Take first the Thesis of Common Descent. In my podcast, Most of the examples you cite are trivialities by comparison, for they don’t involve change across large categories . To mention them would only have weakened the case for macroevolution from the fossil record, which is what I was trying sympathetically to present.

So I don’t see that you said a whole lot beyond what I shared to greatly strengthen the case for the Thesis of Common Ancestry.
In any event, as I emphasized, the Thesis of Common Ancestry is really the less important of the two claims of the neo-Darwinian paradigm: far more important is the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. As you note, theorists like Michael Behe embrace the Thesis of Common Ancestry. Their bone to pick (no pun intended) is with the postulated explanatory mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Here you had nothing to say to show that the staggering biological complexity which our world exhibits could have been created by such mechanisms in the span of four billion years. Recall Barrow and Tipler’s claim that there are at least ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth! Here is where my greatest hesitation about the neo-Darwinian paradigm lodges. I haven’t seen any evidence that the hypothesis of random mutation and natural selection has the sort of explanatory power which the neo-Darwinian paradigm attributes to it.

All this occasions the question: how could a theory which is so speculative and so weakly confirmed as neo-Darwinism be held with such confidence and tenacity by the scientific community? Here’s where Philip Johnson’s insight is relevant to the discussion. Were we to admit into the pool of live explanatory options non-naturalistic hypotheses, then it would no longer be evident that evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the data. It is in that sense that the theory presupposes naturalism. The theory itself doesn’t imply naturalism; rather it is the theory’s current exalted position as the reigning paradigm which depends crucially on excluding from consideration non-naturalist alternatives. For if naturalism is true, then as Alvin Plantinga likes to say, evolution is the only game in town. No matter how improbable, no matter how weak the evidence, evolution’s got to be true because there just isn’t anything non-natural to account for biological complexity. Hence, the confidence.”

To use the Dr. Craig’s words (I hope that is no crime) , “your comments illustrates precisely the point above. You object to non-naturalistic theories on theological grounds. You don’t like the image of the tinkerer God meddling in the evolutionary development of things. You think it makes God into a meddler and a bungler, and you don’t want to worship a God like that. Don’t you see that you have abandoned an objective assessment of the evidence, following it where it leads, in favor of following your theological predilections?  I caution you not to presume that God has to conform to your preferred theological outlook. It is enormously presumptuous to think that we can say with confidence what God would or would not do when it comes to His creating life on this planet. Better to keep an open mind and look at the evidence to see what He did, in fact, do!

I say “Amen” to that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.