Page 1 of 6

Verdict that Demands Evidence

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:00 pm
by August
Hi,

This article appeared in Christianity today. It offers some interesting observatons regarding evolution, and the mounting crisis in that theory, as well as the larger issue of how this is starting to hold back science as a whole.

Enjoy, and debate, I'm sure. :)

August

"It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.

It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"

It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.

But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?

As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."

All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?

Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."

Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.

Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.

So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?

The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.

In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.

So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?

I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment."

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:36 pm
by Anonymous
Yet one more step in the idiotization of America. How long does this maddness have to go on??

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:40 pm
by August
Which part?

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:02 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
I told you it's a conspiracy, August! (wait for confusion to mount).

Very interesting-I knew evolutionsts were the biggest hypocrites and liars, calling there beliefs scientific, backed up by empirical evidence. Cool article.

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:05 pm
by August
You must have me confused with someone else, I never said I believed in the ToE.

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:54 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
I didn't say you did....it was a joke...but I guess you forgot what I was referring to....no use telling you, the joke is ruined, ruined I tell you!

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:19 am
by kateliz
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
Hmmm, sounds kinda like our fanatical darwinists, n'est pas?

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:10 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
Im not a professional Scientist, I did Biology in my HSC and thats about it, I am however considering entering this field so I will state a few points here which can be discussed. They may seem Pro-Darwin to a lot of you so please feel free to discredit my uneducated hypothesis' if you must:

Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function.
What about Mutation? From my understanding Mutation occurs when an Enzyme is not copied correctly from DNA resulting in an enzyme that has different functions to it's predecessors which could result in the changing chemcial reactions of a creature and hence evolution.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:36 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
That is by far the worst argument I have heard in all my days on this earth.....
What about Mutation? From my understanding Mutation occurs when an Enzyme is not copied correctly from DNA resulting in an enzyme that has different functions to it's predecessors which could result in the changing chemcial reactions of a creature and hence evolution.
If an enyzme is mutated, it won't work, which means the cell will die. Geeks who enjoy complicated things are discovering how complex the processes in a cell is. Now, Darwin, if I were to give you a clock-a really nice clock, with all the little cogs and wheels, not the cheap ones from China-and it's running, of course-change the setup of the parts in there, so it works in a different way, remembering this one rule-it must work at every step of the way, so as you remove one cog, the entire clock must still be running.... :wink:

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:55 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
If an enyzme is mutated, it won't work, which means the cell will die.
Not if the mutation happens to be beneficial to the organism. Which is extremely rare (so rare that I dont think they have any evidence of it actually happening) however given an infinite amount of time, anything is possible.

I'm not suggesting that Evolution is cut and dry, I mean no matter how much we argue it down there is still the unexplainable.[/quote]

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:02 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Anything is not possible with time-the laws of physics, given time, aren't broken. And there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation (as far as I know) in an enyzme-if the enyzme changes, it won't function-a mutation won't make it work better or worse....it'll just make it stop working....Actually, a British evolutionist was asked for an example of a beneficial mutation...and he couldn't find one...(it might have been just mutations that added genetic information...but, wait, the DNA would have to be goofed up for the wrong enzyme to be made from it...)

And the thing on the Brit was from Tornado in a Junkyard-I actually remembered my source.

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:38 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
And there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation (as far as I know) in an enyzme-if the enyzme changes, it won't function-a mutation won't make it work better or worse
Most mutations in organisms especially relating to duplication mutations (such as the ones that occur when Enzymes aren't copied properly) are detrimental to the organism, however there are cases where the mutation is beneficial to the organism.

A case study is the mosquito species called Culex pipiens which has developed a resistance to organophosphate insecticides, this is due to a suite of enzyme known as esterases that breaks down the chemical. They gained this enzyme through mutation of B1 and B2 alleles and got an abundance of this enzyme through errors in duplication which resulted in these alleles being copied up to 250 times.

Of course this can then be applied to Natural Selection. Those with the mutation were able to survive the others died out allowing those with the beneficial mutation to breed.

The bottom line is that mutations CAN be beneficial and furthermore that these mutations result in genetic diversity which adds to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:08 pm
by Dan
Darwin_Rocks wrote:
And there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation (as far as I know) in an enyzme-if the enyzme changes, it won't function-a mutation won't make it work better or worse
Most mutations in organisms especially relating to duplication mutations (such as the ones that occur when Enzymes aren't copied properly) are detrimental to the organism, however there are cases where the mutation is beneficial to the organism.

A case study is the mosquito species called Culex pipiens which has developed a resistance to organophosphate insecticides, this is due to a suite of enzyme known as esterases that breaks down the chemical. They gained this enzyme through mutation of B1 and B2 alleles and got an abundance of this enzyme through errors in duplication which resulted in these alleles being copied up to 250 times.

Of course this can then be applied to Natural Selection. Those with the mutation were able to survive the others died out allowing those with the beneficial mutation to breed.

The bottom line is that mutations CAN be beneficial and furthermore that these mutations result in genetic diversity which adds to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The amount of detrimental mutations compared to beneficial is quite a contrast however. More often then not, a species will develop an ailment, genetic disorder, or even in some circumstances a life-threatening change.

Look at humans, each race has its own set of advantages brought on by natural selection (one of them is Europeans being more resistant to AIDS than other races, this is because the Black Plague caused many people susceptible to diseases to die) while almost every single case of mutation has led to a genetic disorder, major physiological impediments, or cancer.

The case for microevolution is strong, the case for macroevolution is a sham. It goes totally against the general trend of the universe as well by the way. Ever hear of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, the universe is in a trend of SIMPLIFICATION, not COMPLEXITY, life supposedly is going against the flow on it's own, which defies the universe. Probability dictates life should've wiped itself out by errors in DNA aeons ago. How do you explain the defiance of physics by evolution?

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:43 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
Ever hear of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, the universe is in a trend of SIMPLIFICATION, not COMPLEXITY, life supposedly is going against the flow on it's own, which defies the universe.
This law does apply to the human race but not in a way that you think it does.

We use the suns energy to survive and evolve for a while on Earth, eventually due to the entropy idea it will run out and our evolving will slow to an eventual stop at which point the human race will die out.

so whilst we do evolve to become more complex in a way we aren't evolving in that eventually a necessary source of energy, the sun, will stop burning and that will be the end of us.

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:15 pm
by Dan
Darwin_Rocks wrote:
Ever hear of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, the universe is in a trend of SIMPLIFICATION, not COMPLEXITY, life supposedly is going against the flow on it's own, which defies the universe.
This law does apply to the human race but not in a way that you think it does.

We use the suns energy to survive and evolve for a while on Earth, eventually due to the entropy idea it will run out and our evolving will slow to an eventual stop at which point the human race will die out.

so whilst we do evolve to become more complex in a way we aren't evolving in that eventually a necessary source of energy, the sun, will stop burning and that will be the end of us.
Things do not get more complex without intelligent force acting upon them. If you take a wad of clay and stick it in an oven, it won't turn into a sculpture on it's own. According to evolution, it will. All the tools for creating a sculpture are there, the energy is there too, but there needs to be an intelligent force directing the energies for something meaningful to happen.