Arguments against Evolution

[Gman]

Well, gman, science is typically presented in a manner that does not require a designer.

Exactly my point... By default, the belief here is that all there is is naturalism, therefore no designer is needed which is why we have the controversy.

In chemistry no one ever teaches it from the perspective that a designer must have done it that way. Same with physics, geology, other biological fields, and so on. And I certainly never hear anyone complaining that chemistry only uses "natural facts" and is lacking in the need for a designer to make it work.

Naturalism, in itself, is actually not a bad thing. It helps us to understand diseases, the weather, the planets, and more. Science, as assumed, therefore tries to account for the factual character of the natural world and tries to create theories to explain these facts. Religion and philosophy on the other hand is assumed to supposedly try to operate in the equally important but utterly different realm of human purposes meanings and values. Something that science could illuminate but never resolve. Science studies how the heavens go, and religion and philosophy how to go to heaven or not. Belief in a designer therefore is not even needed. The claim is that meaning and values are reduced to something entirely human that has no factual basis in the world in which we live. It’s something that can’t be reduced to the physical and is something we have to decide on our own. Basically it boils down to this, sense perceptible structures are facts where feelings are not in the area of truth or reality. But there is no good reason to think that all properties are sense perceptible or natural and therefore there is no good reason to think that all facts are natural. There might be non-natural facts as we have seen before too..

And as far as the philosophical stuff, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Again, all I meant was that there is no explicit mutually exclusive relationship between evolution and Christianity, and that being a Christian does not mean you can't believe that evolution is real (as the main post seemed to suggest).

Sure, and you can inject evolution into a Christian mindset. I'm not debating that.. What I am debating however is that you really cannot separate the two, science and philosophy. They are intertwined so you cannot neatly divide the them.. They will eventually collide so eventually philosophies will clash.. Right now, naturalism (all that there is is matter) has been given the greater hand in our public systems. And this mindless matter supposedly created everything we see today.

As a Christian I actually believe in some forms of evolution. I believe that G-d set the world to recycle itself.. That is death and rebirth found in nature which eventually culminates to our destruction but simply rebirths itself into another form.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'm looking for things that could be used in a "discussion" [on evolution].

Evolution is highly improbable because the theory assumes that random mutations will produce a viable organism, or an organism more able to compete in its environment. Here, from Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology is a striking argument you can use against the probabilities of evolution:

...While probability is expressed by a fraction, (e.g. one in five million times) and when the fraction is as small as these are for the chance production of a protein molecule, then the mathematician would declare the probability of its happening as zero. The evolutionist would likely point out that there still exists a chance, however infinitesimal, of evolution happening because of the billions of years involved. However, even billions of years will not increase the probability enough to put it in the range of reasonable probability. [Scientist Dr Bolton Davidheiser] tested the well-known statement that if a million monkeys were permitted to strike the keys of a million typewriters for a million years, they might by chance type a copy of a Shakespearean play. Setting up a controlled experiment with only capital letters, continuous typing at a uniform rate of speed, and requiring only the first verse of Genesis, he shows that a million monkeys could never type Genesis 1:1, let alone a Shakespearean play in billions of years. Even to type the first line of Hamlet (''Ber. Who's there?'') would require, on the average of a number of repeated experiments 284 trillion years, a period considerably longer than it took evolution to do all it supposedly did. The obvious conclusion of this is that it requires an incredible amount of faith to believe that evolution could have caused by chance all life that ever did or does now exist. Could life have evolved by chance? The probability of forming one protein molecule by chance is one in 10243, which is a figure of 1 followed by 243 zeros...

Something to think about.

FL

[RickD]

What if evolution wasn't random? What if evolution was the way the creator allowed life to adapt and survive?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

What if evolution wasn't random? What if evolution was the way the creator allowed life to adapt and survive?

That's Theistic Evolution, a way some have found to reconcile evolution with what is plainly written in the Bible. You're a pilot, right? Theistic evolution is like applying full throttle, keeping both feet tightly on the brakes and hauling the yoke into your lap. Try it the next time you're on the runway...

FL

[RickD]

What if evolution wasn't random? What if evolution was the way the creator allowed life to adapt and survive?

That's Theistic Evolution, a way some have found to reconcile evolution with what is plainly written in the Bible. You're a pilot, right? Theistic evolution is like applying full throttle, keeping both feet tightly on the brakes and hauling the yoke into your lap. Try it the next time you're on the runway...

FL

FL, some people say Old Earth/Progressive Creationism is a way to reconcile evolution with what's plainly written in scripture(YEC). And why would you think I'm a pilot. With my psych evaluation, do you really think they'd let me fly a plane?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

... some people say Old Earth/Progressive Creationism is a way to reconcile evolution with what's plainly written in scripture(YEC).

I prefer things plain & simple. It's the KISS principle, Keep It Simple, Stupid. Marrying creationism with evolution is like the food in one of those cheap all-you-can-eat ''Chinese'' buffets: all kind of food is there, from American to...Zimbabwean, with a Chinese twist. Anything you like, just pile it on your plate however you like and leave out the stuff you can't stomach. It's crap that'll fill your tummy but it isn't cuisine.

And why would you think I'm a pilot. With my psych evaluation, do you really think they'd let me fly a plane?

I once read you were going out with your Cessna! I now understand you were making a joke. Anyway, I've provided you with a new analogy: Food!

FL

(What do they eat in Slobovia?)

[RickD]

I once read you were going out with your Cessna! I now understand you were making a joke. Anyway, I've provided you with a new analogy: Food!

Was that the same Cessna I almost flew off the edge of the flat earth? Maybe that was the plane I flew when my Lamborghini was in the shop, being converted to a submarine. I traded that plane for a lifetime supply of Skittles.

[sandy_mcd]

then the mathematician would declare the probability of its happening as zero.

Most mathematicians would not say something was zero unless it was zero. A very small number is not zero.

The evolutionist would likely point out that there still exists a chance, however infinitesimal, of evolution happening because of the billions of years involved.

The scientist would likely point out that the only people who think entire proteins were generated from a random assemblage of atoms are non-scientists.

What if evolution wasn't random? What if evolution was the way the creator allowed life to adapt and survive?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Most mathematicians would not say something was zero unless it was zero. A very small number is not zero.

You have a 1 in 10 chance of winning a billion dollars. You have a 1 in 243-trillon-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion... chance of winning a billion dollars. Which is more likely to make you rich? Forget mathematicians, ask an actuary about the significance of a very small number.

The scientist would likely point out that the only people who think entire proteins were generated from a random assemblage of atoms are non-scientists.

Do you split hairs for a living?

FL

[Beanybag]

It's very true that mathematicians do not wantonly round small numbers down. A 1 in 5 million chance is not even that low across a population that can produce a million of its own species in a day.

[sandy_mcd]

You have a 1 in 10 chance of winning a billion dollars. You have a 1 in 243-trillon-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion... chance of winning a billion dollars. Which is more likely to make you rich?

The 1 in 10 chance (this assumes i don't have to buy a lottery ticket since i don't).

Forget mathematicians, ask an actuary about the significance of a very small number.

Let me pose a question to you then:
1) Would you accept a billion dollars, with absolutely zero chance of strings or catches of any sort attached?
2) Would you accept a billion dollars, but if you do accept, there is a 1 in 243-trillon-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion... chance of your being sent to Hell?

Do you split hairs for a living?

No, I work with small things, but nothing like that.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The 1 in 10 chance (this assumes i don't have to buy a lottery ticket since i don't).

I don't buy lottery tickets either. We have that in common.

me pose a question to you then:
1) Would you accept a billion dollars, with absolutely zero chance of strings or catches of any sort attached?
2) Would you accept a billion dollars, but if you do accept, there is a 1 in 243-trillon-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion... chance of your being sent to Hell?

One or the other is fine with me! Choice #2's ''danger'' is so small as to be nonexistant.

May I go to the Rolls Royce dealership now? Will you be sending me my billion dollars soon?

FL

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

It's very true that mathematicians do not wantonly round small numbers down. A 1 in 5 million chance is not even that low across a population that can produce a million of its own species in a day.

Wantonly round small numbers down you said! What bombast! Who ever spoke of ''wanton rounding down of numbers'' ???

As for A one in 5 million chance is not even that low across a population that can produce a million of its own species in a day, you need to know that each replication has that same 1 in 5 million chance. (And where did you get such a favorable number anyway?) So, in your specious example, each replication in your 5 million replications in a day still have a 1 in 5 million chance to mutate.
Another way of understanding this is that if you buy 5 million lottery tickets, it does not mean that you are guaranteed to win. Each ticket has a 1 in 5,000,000 chance of winning. Those are very bad odds when you are counting on winning over and over and over and over and over and over....x 10243 again as evolution supposes.

FL

[KBCid]

What if evolution wasn't random? What if evolution was the way the creator allowed life to adapt and survive?

Aaaaah ha! You sir are a genius. Who would have ever thought to question that part of the evolutionary hypothesis?. Supposedly the scientific method is to be used to test hypothetical concepts.
It is now becoming apparent that random mutations are not so random anymore;

Recent studiesThe hypothesis of directed mutagenesis was first proposed in 1988 [4] by John Cairns, of Harvard University[5] who was studying Escherichia coli that lacked the ability to metabolize lactose. He grew these bacteria in media in which lactose was the only source of energy. In doing so, he found that the rate at which the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize lactose was many orders of magnitude higher than would be expected if the mutations were truly random. This inspired him to propose that the mutations that had occurred had been directed at those genes involved in lactose utilization.[6][7]
Later support for this hypothesis came from Susan Rosenberg, then at the University of Alberta, who found that an enzyme involved in DNA recombinational repair, recBCD, was necessary for the directed mutagenesis observed by Cairns and colleagues in 1989.
The directed mutagenesis hypothesis was challenged in 2002, when John Roth and colleagues showed that the phenomenon was due to general hypermutability due to selected gene amplification, and was thus a "standard Darwinian process." Later research published in 2006 by Jeffrey D. Stumpf, Anthony R. Poteete, and Patricia L. Foster, however, concluded that amplification could not account for the adaptive mutation and that "mutants that appear during the first few days of lactose selection are true revertants that arise in a single step".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_mutagenesis

Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research
Abstract
Mutation frequencies vary significantly along nucleotide sequences such that mutations often concentrate at certain positions called hotspots.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4203000322