Jump to content


Photo

Are Creationists Ethical In Challenging Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:21 AM

Many have laid the charges of dishonesty and ingenuousness at the feet of creation scientists. There are some who say creationists have no right to interject "religion" into "science." I will refrain from attacking the use of these two terms. Though, at the least they are subjectively defined, and at most can be used as propagandistic lawyers' tricks, complete with power to "guard" education from religion.

Rather, I submit that evolutionary thinking, whether intentionally or unintentionally, threw the first stone by intruding into the subject of the origin of life. Or, if you prefer the neo-Darwin stance, how life came to be in it's present form. It is not my purpose in this post to argue the rightness or wrongness of evolution, but to argue that Darwin, LaMarck, Lyell, and others originally intruded into what had formerly been the purpose of Christianity in Europe and America.

Check into it and you will find facts like Harvard was started as a bible school, and Oxford scholars were instrumental in the 1769 revision of the King James Bible. Of course, after enlightenment thinking took root higher education, it grew to what now is a monopoly of our educational, and hence scientific institutions. Dialogue is welcome in this area also!

So to the question: If evolutionists have intruded into our purpose of life (what we are, and how we came to be) why are creationists wrong in defending the Bible as as actual history by the same scientific methodology as evolutionists use--but with different interpretations of the same data? Or, in the case of non Christian creationists, that a Creator did create life. Why is creation science unethical, as it seems to me that secular (evolutionary)scientists are indirectly telling us who we are, and how we came to be?

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:13 AM

but with different interpretations of the same data?


Here is where the true irony will be revealed. Why do creationists accept all scientific data and evolutionists reject any that's empirical or cherry pick from limited data sets?

Out place fossils.
Erosion rates.
Mutation rates.
Empirical dating methods.
Abrupt appearance and stasis.
Probabilities and statistics.
Archeology.
Law of biogenesis.
Law of heredity.
Chemistry.

Evolution happened in the textbooks, but it never happened in the rocks or in the laboratory. Why? From earlier in your post:

complete with power to "guard" education from religion.


I'm not saying that "God created" is a science, either. I'm saying that it's a hypothesis that doesn't have to hide behind political doors. It stands firmly and honestly on any evidence that can be found. If it's in the rocks or in the lab., it doesn't need to be omitted to be feasible.

Why is creation science unethical


If you seek the truth, then you will be persecuted; Even if they have to lie to do it. Until everyone believes, Satan will always have his way.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 08:53 AM

I'm not saying that "God created" is a science, either. I'm saying that it's a hypothesis that doesn't have to hide behind political doors. It stands firmly and honestly on any evidence that can be found. If it's in the rocks or in the lab., it doesn't need to be omitted to be feasible.

View Post

Are the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, or the American Revolution science? Everyone will say "no, they are not science." But can we find scientific (forensic) evidence of such? Everyone will say, "yes, we can find scientific or forensic of these things." But here is the pertinent question--Does the forensic evidence of George Washington prove that he existed? We would have to say no. It is rather the historical documentation that causes us to accept his existence, and the forensic evidence only supports the historical witness.

So it is the acceptance of the history about George Washington which, technically, creates a national presupposition. If we didn't have the history, no one could have known to search, or pass down the historical relics of George Washington!

So am I now judged as ludicrous, because I regard the scripture as an historical narrative (as in global flood hypothesis) ? Or if I go about to support creative fiat (as in the intelligent design movement)? And if I then go about, using scientific methodology to only support this, why is it considered a foul?

Do not the evolutionists also presuppose the scientific findings of biology and geology to be supportive of an original premise given by Darwin? There is no difference. Both sides start with a premise, it's just that creationists include what they consider to be eyewitness accounts and revelatory truth. The thinking is that if it is such, there should be supportive evidence of this. However the evidence itself does not prove anything alone--it only supports the premise. And yes, the conclusions must go through the presuppositionary filter, which produces the direction of research in the first place! This is basically what evolutionists do--the only difference is the scientists make up their own stories to fit the evidence, because they presuppose evolution occurred over millions of years.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:12 AM

I'm not saying that "God created" is a science, either. I'm saying that it's a hypothesis that doesn't have to hide behind political doors. It stands firmly and honestly on any evidence that can be found. If it's in the rocks or in the lab., it doesn't need to be omitted to be feasible.

View Post


Are the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, or the American Revolution science? Everyone will say "no, they are not science." But can we find scientific (forensic) evidence of such? Everyone will say, "yes, we can find scientific or forensic of these things."

View Post

Indeed, they are not science, but they can be used as tools of science (i.e. factual evidence) to come to a logical, rational and scientific conclusion.

But here is the pertinent question--Does the forensic evidence of George Washington prove that he existed?  We would have to say no. It is rather the historical documentation that causes us to accept his existence, and the forensic evidence only supports the historical witness.

View Post


On this I would have to both agree and disagree.
1- Forensic evidence of George Washington alone can indeed prove he is George Washington, to a degree (dependent upon the subject you are using as a comparison i.e. a relative etc…).
2- Historical evidence of George Washington alone can indeed prove there was a George Washington, and tell us a great deal about the man, but it is limited as well. Although it can be much stronger evidence than the forensic evidence (and usually is). It is limited by the credibility of said evidence (i.e. are the eye witnesses credible? Do they corroborate each other and align with the other credible evidence extant? Are the contemporaneous writers credible? Do they corroborate each other and align with the other credible evidence extant? Is there corroborating archeological evidence? Does it corroborate and align with the other credible evidence extant? Etc…).


So it is the acceptance of the history about George Washington which, technically, creates a national presupposition.  If we didn't have the history, no one could have known to search, or pass down the historical relics of George Washington!  And so it would seem then, that one of the ways to support creative fiat is to attack the theory of step by step evolution?

View Post

Unlike the forensic evidence evolution attempts to claim, the evidence for George Washington is fully corroborated historically and forensically. It all correlates with each other. Further, you can use the verified evidences to devalue the fallacious. Unfortunately for evolution (macro), there is no such validation to compare one to the other.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:13 AM

So am I now judged as ludicrous, because I regard the scripture as an historical narrative (as in global flood hypothesis)?  Or if I go about to support creative fiat (as in the intelligent design movement)?  And if I then go about, using scientific methodology to only support this, why is it considered a foul?

View Post

Only by those who either do not understand how these evidences work. Or by those who wish to these the deficiencies from themselves and others.


Do not the evolutionists also presuppose the scientific findings of biology and geology to be supportive of an original premise given by Darwin? 

View Post

Yes!

There is no difference. 

View Post

Indeed. I concur.

Both sides start with a premise, it's just that creationists include what they consider to be eyewitness accounts and revelatory truth.  The thinking is that if it is such, there should be supportive evidence of this.  However the evidence itself does not prove anything alone--it only supports the premise.  And yes, the conclusions must go through the presuppositionary filter, which produces the direction of research in the first place!  This is basically what evolutionists do--the only difference is the scientists make up their own stories to fit the evidence, because they presuppose evolution occurred over millions of years.

View Post

Yes.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:20 AM

So am I now judged as ludicrous, because I regard the scripture as an historical narrative (as in global flood hypothesis) ? Or if I go about to support creative fiat (as in the intelligent design movement)? And if I then go about, using scientific methodology to only support this, why is it considered a foul?

Do not the evolutionists also presuppose the scientific findings of biology and geology to be supportive of an original premise given by Darwin?


If they don't fully accept Christ as Lord and Savior, then God has a plan B for them.

“...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

No amount of evidence can stop God's command to believe a lie, because were not fighting against evidence, but God's command.


Enjoy.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:30 AM

Indeed, they are not science, but they can be used as tools of science (i.e. factual evidence) to come to a logical, rational and scientific conclusion.


Yes, Ron. That's why I used the term "Hypothesis". A hypothesis is an unproven or untested idea. Only after testing and verification is it a scientific theory. We can never prove or test the idea that the God of Abraham created. We could only verify all of the predictions of creation, but it could of been the flying spaghetti monster as far as proof goes.

Evolutionists can't be that honest with themselves. They will always claim that their untestable ideas are scientific theories and when proven wrong they will claim that "science is self correcting".


Enjoy.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 01:49 PM

Indeed, they are not science, but they can be used as tools of science (i.e. factual evidence) to come to a logical, rational and scientific conclusion.


We can never prove or test the idea that the God of Abraham created. We could only verify all of the predictions of creation....

View Post

Well said. But neither side can really "prove" their position, because it's about the past. So shouldn't there be more tolerance in the science field.

but it could of been the flying spaghetti monster as far as proof goes.

View Post

I think I refer to my former argument about George Washington. And concerning that, Ron even makes the arguement about the reliability of history alone. God has historical validity in his dealings with mankind, and He is still visibly active today. He is a Spirit, so people want to mock with sarcastic titles, of course with the intention of a directionless confusion, like nobody has ever crossed paths with the things of God. Or that looking at the order and beauty of creation would not be justified in reflecting the cause.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:16 PM

I think I refer to my former argument about George Washington. And concerning that, Ron even makes the arguement about the reliability of history alone.


That's why I included archeology in my list of sciences that academia will cherry pick or ignore. The bible is one the most confirmed history books in the world (according to the evidence we dig out of the ground). Rejecting it on religious grounds is to reject verifiable history. It's akin to saying we believe in George Washington because we're religious liars. Or we can't include history into classrooms because it violates our constitutional freedoms. :P

In that context, our history is verifiable, but evolution has to hide countless out of place fossils to give an illusion that theirs may be true.

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:33 PM

I think I refer to my former argument about George Washington. And concerning that, Ron even makes the arguement about the reliability of history alone.


The bible is one the most confirmed history books in the world (according to the evidence we dig out of the ground). Rejecting it on religious grounds is to reject verifiable history. It's akin to saying we believe in George Washington because we're religious liars.

View Post

Could you clarify this statement? How can you reject the Bible on religious grounds? Do you mean because evolution is "religious." And are you saying rejecting the Bible is "akin to saying we believe in George Washington because we're religious liars." Why is that? Just asking for clarification :P .

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 03:06 PM

Indeed, they are not science, but they can be used as tools of science (i.e. factual evidence) to come to a logical, rational and scientific conclusion.


We can never prove or test the idea that the God of Abraham created. We could only verify all of the predictions of creation....

View Post

Well said. But neither side can really "prove" their position, because it's about the past. So shouldn't there be more tolerance in the science field.

View Post

I couldn’t disagree more. If you cannot use verified (based upon unimpeachable facts) Historical and Forensic scientific evidence to “prove” a position, then you cannot even “prove” what you did last year, yesterday, or even ten minutes ago.

Further, we can prove the God of Abraham created (see Romans chapter One), because we can touch, taste, smell, see and hear the creation. Logically, rationally, and scientifically there is absolutely no other explanation for the “Creation” of the universe, life, and intelligence (etc…)! Origins itself is the greatest miracle, but if it could illogically come about via “Naturalistic” means, it would be an even greater miracle! On this point I totally agree with the transcendental argument for God (although there are other points I would question).

Therefore the evolutionists have a hard row to hoe when it comes to “proving” their worldview. And the atheistic evolutionists have created a philosophical stone so large that they cannot even lift it with their argumentation.


I think I refer to my former argument about George Washington.  And concerning that, Ron even makes the arguement about the reliability of history alone.  God has historical validity in his dealings with mankind, and He is still visibly active today.  He is a Spirit, so people want to mock with sarcastic titles, of course with the intention of a directionless  confusion, like nobody has ever crossed paths with the things of God.  Or that looking at the order and beauty of creation would not be justified in reflecting the cause.

View Post


On the above I totally agree.

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 03:26 PM

Could you clarify this statement?  How can you reject the Bible on religious grounds?  Do you mean because evolution is "religious."  And are you saying rejecting the Bible is "akin to saying we believe in George Washington because we're religious liars."  Why is that?  Just asking for clarification :P .


They will claim that the historical facts are sneaking creationism into the classroom. If it's verified fact or not. The George Washington part was "Tongue and cheek", but it truly represents their position on any facts that confirm the bible.

#13 rueh

rueh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • San Antonio, Texas

Posted 09 May 2011 - 03:15 PM

Many have laid the charges of dishonesty and ingenuousness at the feet of creation scientists.  There are some who say creationists have no right to interject "religion" into "science."  I will refrain from attacking the use of these two terms.  Though, at the least they are subjectively defined, and at most can be used as propagandistic lawyers' tricks, complete with power to "guard" education from religion.

Rather, I submit that evolutionary thinking, whether intentionally or unintentionally, threw the first stone by intruding into the  subject of the origin of life.  Or, if you prefer the neo-Darwin stance, how life came to be in it's present form.  It is not my purpose in this post to argue the rightness or wrongness of evolution, but to argue that Darwin, LaMarck, Lyell, and others originally intruded into what had formerly been the purpose of Christianity in Europe and America. 

Check into it and you will find facts like Harvard was started as a bible school, and Oxford scholars were  instrumental in the 1769 revision of the King James Bible.  Of course, after enlightenment thinking took root higher education, it grew to what now is a monopoly of our educational, and hence scientific institutions.  Dialogue is welcome in this area also!

So to the question:  If evolutionists have intruded into our purpose of life (what we are, and how we came to be) why are creationists wrong in defending the Bible as as actual history by the same scientific methodology as evolutionists use--but with different interpretations of the same data?  Or, in the case of non Christian creationists, that a Creator did create life.  Why is creation science unethical, as it seems to me that secular (evolutionary)scientists are indirectly telling us who we are, and how we came to be?

View Post


Hello AFJ,
Personaly I don't think that it is wrong for scientists to pursue the evidence with the intent to validate creationism (in which ever form). My question is are they really doing that? If so how do they come to these conclusions without ignoring all the additional evidence from the other sciences. Are there any peer reveiwed articles that show's anything that lends credence to creationism? I don't think that many people have any objections to allowing the scientists to study whatever they see fit. I believe the objection lies in religious groups trying to circumvent the entire scientific process and inject their particular flavor of creationism directly into the schools and the minds of our childern.

#14 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 09 May 2011 - 07:06 PM

I believe the objection lies in religious groups trying to circumvent the entire scientific process and inject their particular flavor of creationism directly into the schools and the minds of our childern.

View Post


Are they not already doing this to our children by teaching a worldview in the classroom? Like what My sig says.

#15 rueh

rueh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • San Antonio, Texas

Posted 10 May 2011 - 04:29 AM

Are they not already doing this to our children by teaching a worldview in the classroom? Like what My sig says.

View Post

No science class I have ever attended taught a worldveiw as creationists present it. They only taught what have been found to be the facts and evidence that have been discovered by a particular science in a secular method. The fact that species change over time is a fact of the evidence. The theory of evolution is the explanation of this fact that is tentative as with all scientific theories. Since new evidence could always shed discoveries on evolution that would need the theory to either be adapted to incorporate this evidence. Or disgarded when a better explanatory theory arrises. Which is kinda the point of my reply to AFJ. If scientists who want to validate creationism want to be taken seriously, they need to start with the evidence and form a hypothesis that explains the pattern better or has greater predictive outcomes. After this it needs to be peer reviewed and critiqued as with any other hypothesis. If enough scientists through peer review find this hypothesis to be a better explanation of the evidence than it will gain the status of theory through it's own merits and be considered to be taught to the students. Yet this is not the methods that so many who advocate creationism are pushing for.

#16 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 10 May 2011 - 05:18 AM

No science class I have ever attended taught a worldveiw as creationists present it. They only taught what have been found to be the facts and evidence that have been discovered by a particular science in a secular method.

View Post

Disregarding paradigms in science that worldviews are always engrained in knowledge, I'd fargoing agree with you in the cases of physics and chemistry.

The fact that species change over time is a fact of the evidence. The theory of evolution is the explanation of this fact that is tentative as with all scientific theories.

View Post

Now what you say here can have more then one meaning i.e.:
1. Species do change internally in terms of predominant genetic configuration.
2. Species change bringing forth other new species with novel features.

There is evidence for No.1, but that's not specifically a view of Darwinian evolution, which just extrapolates on this. No evidence exist supporting No.2, but that's at the core of Darwinian evolution. And since that is also what is taught, they clearly teach a world view and not merely scientific facts.

Since new evidence could always shed discoveries on evolution that would need the theory to either be adapted to incorporate this evidence. Or disgarded when a better explanatory theory arrises. Which is kinda the point of my reply to AFJ.

View Post

That's exactly the problem with evolution. No matter how the evidence is interpreted, the final conclusion is always evolution. If there are commonalities between species, then that demonstates Evolution (common ancestry). If there are differences, then that demonstrates Evolution ("change over time") too.

That's by the way a closed loop system that Darwin himself didn't subscribe, too. In his Origin of species he mentions more then one mode of falsifying the theory he postulated. I.e. "...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...."

In my opinion this has been demonstrated on more then one occassion. That's what is called irreducible complexity...

If scientists who want to validate creationism want to be taken seriously, they need to start with the evidence and form a hypothesis that explains the pattern better or has greater predictive outcomes. After this it needs to be peer reviewed and critiqued as with any other hypothesis. If enough scientists through peer review find this hypothesis to be a better explanation of the evidence than it will gain the status of theory through it's own merits and be considered to be taught to the students. Yet this is not the methods that so many who advocate creationism are pushing for.

View Post

... and that lead to a sound hypothesis: "Intelligent Design", which is certainly more valid then the various evolutionary phantasies.
Btw.: What gives you the idea that Creationist don't peer review their scientific articles?

#17 rueh

rueh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • San Antonio, Texas

Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:49 AM

Disregarding paradigms in science that worldviews are always engrained in knowledge, I'd fargoing agree with you in the cases of physics and chemistry.

View Post

Well I would argue that one’s worldview gained from knowledge is subjective and is dependant from person to person. There are people all over the world who study biology yet not everyone believes that through study they must abandon previous worldviews that they already hold true. As an example, my own belief in God's magnificence has been strengthend through expanding my knowledge of various scientific studies.

Now what you say here can have more then one meaning i.e.:
1. Species do change internally in terms of predominant genetic configuration.
2. Species change bringing forth other new species with novel features.

There is evidence for No.1, but that's not specifically a view of Darwinian evolution, which just extrapolates on this. No evidence exist supporting No.2, but that's at the core of Darwinian evolution. And since that is also what is taught, they clearly teach a world view and not merely scientific facts.

View Post

The scientific facts that are evidence for No. 2 include fossil evidence, homologies, geographical and temporal distribution, genetics and examples of evolution through artificial selection. So I believe it is dishonest to say that no lines of evidence exist to support species change through evolution.

That's exactly the problem with evolution. No matter how the evidence is interpreted, the final conclusion is always evolution. If there are commonalities between species, then that demonstates Evolution (common ancestry). If there are differences, then that demonstrates Evolution ("change over time") too.

View Post

So you think it is a disadvantage for evolution to predict that commonalities and differences of homologies should exists if evolution is true and that when compared to real life this is exactly what we see and in the same patterns as was predicted?

That's by the way a closed loop system that Darwin himself didn't subscribe, too. In his Origin of species he mentions more then one mode of falsifying the theory he postulated. I.e. "...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...."


In my opinion this has been demonstrated on more then one occassion. That's what is called irreducible complexity...
... and that lead to a sound hypothesis: "Intelligent Design", which is certainly more valid then the various evolutionary phantasies.

View Post

Do you have any examples of irreducible complexity that could not have arisen through evolution? I have yet to see any that have not been refuted.
ABE: One of the biggest problems I have with intelligent design is, that at it's core it does not appear to be anything other than an argument from ignorance. In other words we have a system that we do not fully understand, so therefore insert god of choice here. It just seems to be lacking any explanatory power and does little to sastisfy curiousity. Even if intelligent design pans out what does that tells us as to how the god of choice opperated to design these systems? It seems to me to be a reversal in knowledge, akin to times when the machanisms that cause lightining were not understood so therefore it was Odin casting thunderbolts that caused it.

Btw.: What gives you the idea that Creationist don't peer review their scientific articles?

View Post

I was actually looking for examples of peer review from creation scientists in secular journals? If you know of any, I would love to read what they wrote.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 May 2011 - 04:22 PM

1. The scientific facts that are evidence for No. 2 include fossil evidence, homologies, geographical and temporal distribution, genetics and examples of evolution through artificial selection. So I believe it is dishonest to say that no lines of evidence exist to support species change through evolution.

2. Do you have any examples of irreducible complexity that could not have arisen through evolution? I have yet to see any that have not been refuted.

3. ABE: One of the biggest problems I have with intelligent design is, that at it's core it does not appear to be anything other than an argument from ignorance. In other words we have a system that we do not fully understand, so therefore insert god of choice here. It just seems to be lacking any explanatory power and does little to sastisfy curiousity. Even if intelligent design pans out what does that tells us as to how the god of choice opperated to design these systems? It seems to me to be a reversal in knowledge, akin to times when the machanisms that cause lightining were not understood so therefore it was Odin casting thunderbolts that caused it.

I was actually looking for examples of peer review from creation scientists in secular journals? If you know of any, I would love to read what they wrote.

View Post


1. You do realise that these "evidences" are interpreted with evolutionary bias.... Here are some examples

Fossils show no change over millions of years for some species- refutes evolution
Fossils demonstrate long periods of no changewith sudden periods of large, (hypothesised) change
Homologies doesn't describe evolutionary mechanisms, it is an assumtionbased evidence, claiming that just because they look kinda the same then they must have evolved... This also has no explanatory power, I suggest you critically analyse your own evidence

2. Plenty

Glycolysis
Citric acid cycle
Electron transport chain
all three of the above working synergistically
the digestion system
the homeopathic system- (to keep balance)

I have asked evolutionists these examples and I have not heard a coherent logical response, care to try your hand?

3. IMO ID is the null hypotheisis of naturalistic evolution. If you cannot find a naturalistic answer for something, (after all avenues are looked at), or if you find that something cannot have logically occured when just looking at the naturalistic science then you must conclude that there is / was something else outside of the natural to bring about that occurance. It is the only logical explaination, rather than believing in a broken "theory" despite not having the evidence to do so.

#19 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 10 May 2011 - 05:00 PM

I was actually looking for examples of peer review from creation scientists in secular journals? If you know of any, I would love to read what they wrote.

View Post


Now why would You expect secular scientists to peer review creationists works? You do realize that at the git-go they would look at any creationists works with biased views and opinions and not take anything they come up with seriously. You should try reading the creationists journals that are published and peer reviewed by other creationists(scientists), like the secular scientists peer review secular views and ideas.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 May 2011 - 06:16 PM

I was actually looking for examples of peer review from creation scientists in secular journals? If you know of any, I would love to read what they wrote.

View Post


Sure... Okay here's a few:


Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

Darwinian evolution is, at its heart, a search algorithm that uses a trial and error process of random mutation and unguided natural selection to find genotypes (i.e. DNA sequences) that lead to phenotypes (i.e. biomolecules and body plans) that have high fitness (i.e. foster survival and reproduction). This peer-reviewed scientific article in the journal IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans by William Dembski and Robert Marks explains that unless a search starts off with some information about where peaks in a fitness landscape may lie, any search -- including Darwinian search algorithms-- are on average no better than a random search. After assessing various examples of evolutionary searches, Dembski and Marks show that attempts to model Darwinian evolution via computer simulations, such Richard Dawkins famous "METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL" example, start off with, as Dembski and Marks put it, "problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure." According to the paper, such simulations only reach their evolutionary targets because there is pre-specified "accurate information to guide them," or what they call "active information." The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences. They conclude that "Active information is clearly required in even modestly sized searches."

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.

Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985).

In this article appearing in a 1985 technical reference book, mathematician Granville Sewell compares the complexity found in the genetic code of life to that of a computer program. He recognizes that the fundamental problem for evolution is the "problem of novelties" which raises the question "How can natural selection cause new organs to arise and guide their development through the initial stages during which they present no selective advantage"? Sewell then explains how a Darwinist will try to bridge both functional and fossil gaps between biological structures through "a long chain of tiny improvements in his imagination," but notes that "the analogy with software puts his ideas into perspective." Major changes to a species require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Natural selection, a process which is "unable to plan beyond the next tiny mutation" could never produce the complexity of life.


Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.


Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)

Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer.

There are plenty of others. In fact, if you do a litle research on your own, these (and many others) aren't all that hard to find.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users