I take it for granted that I can accept scientific findings rather easily, I admit I have confidence in the scientific method. It must really suck seeing a story about Neanderthals and Early Humans coexisting and thinking it is a bunch of hooey, or not even trying to understand it. Or seeing a story about early mammals swimming with dinosaurs 164 million years ago and shaking your head at it.
But then again, it must be like being learning disabled or even in a vegetative Alzheimer's state or something like that; dismissing scientific findings because it goes against ones ego or goes against man's written words of 2000 years ago. Again, I'm glad it isn't me.
These two new discoveries easily fit into the overall theory of evolution. However, they might wipe out some minor theories, and of course strengthen many other theories. Most findings have a domino effect on existing theories, adding strength to seemingly less related ones. That is the beauty of science, each new discovery is like a jigsaw puzzle piece in the giant puzzle of the history of life and the universe. For example, as more evidence is found, the exact timelines that Neanderthal and Early Man's actually coextisted can be made more certain. As more evidence is found, the exact timeline of the first early mammal and the first swimming mammal can be be made more certain.
These two findings don't help out the Fundy theory of creation one bit though, the only thing Fundies can say about it that it proves that scientists don't have all the answers and then they twist it to conclude that scientists are wrong, therefore creation is right and evolution is dead.
As soon as something doesn't fit into a scientific theory, the theory has to be revised or killed. No scientific finding as ever gone against evolution theory and supported Young Earth Creation. It always seems to be the other way. And don't think there aren't a ton of Creationists with PHD's looking to disprove evolution. They've tried for years, and they just can't.
I agree, fundies will use stories and discoveries like these and twist them around to “prove” how worthless science really is. Science will never have all the answers and does not pretend to. It’s too bad we can’t say the same thing about those fundies.
ReplyDeleteThe findings of different scientific disciplines often back each other up. Plate tectonics, fossil records, astronomical observations, geological formations, evolutionary theory, radioactive decay and genetic histories all point to an old Earth and even older Universe. If the world is young someone went to extraordinary lengths to make it appear old.
ReplyDeleteMany people have trouble grasping that God is a creation of man yet we observe all around us that complex things come from less complex things. Even a child can tell the difference between the natural and the designed.
Yet, how could mindless goop result in the splendour that is man? I say, how could it not? The most creative force in the universe has no mind and therefore few limits to its power. No predefined end result shackles its creativity. It has no conscience either, hence suffering..
"Many people have trouble grasping that God is a creation of man..."
ReplyDeleteI likes that phrase. Besides, there is evidence and theories about the coexistance of Neanderthals and modern men. There are also theories about interbreeding, so we must still be carrying genes from Neanderthals in our genetic pool
Atheologist, it takes a long long time for believers to change their dogma even a little based on mounds of facts. The Pope seems to be heading in the right direction these days though, but the Fundies are stuck on retarded.
ReplyDeleteAA, none of these new finding rule out a creator. Even though the likelihood of one is as close to zero as you can get. But these findings rule out a young earth. It is amazing that people will watch news, read news and watch nature or science shows and have to deal with the obvious conflicts of hard facts versus beliefs that are obviously wrong.
Marco, I thought you disappeared. I think there is research now that says that nobody around today has Neanderthal genes. Meaning either that interbreeding didn't happen, or anyone who carried the Neanderthal gene got wiped out somewhere between then and now. Maybe the Neanderthal relatives were defenseless against the Black Plague. We don't know enough YET.
I don’t see how creation theory and evolutionary theory clash. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to understand the process of creation yet creation theory makes no attempt whatsoever to describe the process. In a sense no one denies the fact of creation itself.
ReplyDeleteWhen people ask me if I believe in God I say yes. God is the word that symbolizes what we dimly comprehend as the greatest good – the pure essence of goodness. All other notions like old man in the sky or blob of ectoplasm are examples of primitivism. Of course I could be completely wrong and I do understand that out there somewhere the old guy with the flowing beard is busy creating something or punishing someone. Yet, interestingly, the Bible supports my viewpoint, John1:1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.
AA, most of those who believe in creationism believe that God created man as man. The scam that is ID would not commit to a specific theory because once creationists actually put specifics into the "theory", it opens it up to be proved wrong. For example if they said God created man as man less than 10,000 years ago or if they say that man specifically didn't evolve from a lower life form.
ReplyDeleteAgain, one can't prove there isn't a God, just as one can't prove there isnn't 367 Gods. But as more discoveries are made, the need for a god to jump start everything approaches zero even more.
Are you sure there are no Neanderthal genes among us? What about Bush?
ReplyDeleteOne has to shut their ears and eyes very tight in order to believe in young earth. That must be a very uncomforatble way to live.
ReplyDeleteBoth evolution and creation are models of an event that no human was around to see, and that cannot be repeated. Therefore, neither side is theorizing on a process that can be studied empirically. It is a past event - a singularity. Thus the methods of operation science do not apply. Rather we must use forensic science to look at the facts and try to interpret which model of origins best explains them. Both sides of the debate are working with the same set of facts - it is in the interpretation of these facts that they differ. Thus, to whatever extent evolution is science, so is the creation model. To say that creationism is not science because it allows for an intelligent creator to be the cause is incredibly narrow minded. Only if science is defined in terms of philosophical naturalism (that all causes are within nature) would this be true. Creationists, on the other hand, can allow the facts to point wherever they will without imposing a preconceived theory onto them as evolutionists have been doing since Darwin first published his theory in the 1800's.
ReplyDeleteAnd while it is the case that plenty of scientists do not accept evolution, I have tried to limit my criticism to factual problems that evolutionists themselves agree upon (hence the quotes which are almost completely made up of evolutionist sources). Keep in mind that what is presented below is not a collection of "creationist facts" - rather it is the facts that evolutionists acknowledge, only with the non-evolutionary implications highlighted. This is completely legitimate, as Harvard University Professor Dr. Steven J Gould acknowledges: “Facts do not 'speak for themselves' they are read in light of theory."
That said, I believe that the creation model is far better at explaining the facts of science. The following is a brief outline of some of the problems with evolution - the "ABC's of Evolution" - followed by some closing remarks on the Real Issue.
Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing! Astounding as it may seem, these so-called ape men have been the product of an overactive imagination. Consider the following famous cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes:
1856 "Neanderthal Man"
The only "ape-man" that was not specifically being sought to prove Darwin correct, Neanderthal is now considered to be basically human with some genetic differences - not an ancestor at any rate.
1892 "Java Man"
An ape's skullcap plus a human leg bone re-imagined with Gibbon proportions turned out to just be artistic fancy.
1912 "Piltdown Man"
Revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950 (it was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull). But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution.
1912 "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls and tools led to this contender for ape-man. It is currently believed that human workers ate the brains much like some do to this day.
1922"Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. The tooth was actually from an extinct pig.
1982 "Orce Man"
Evolutionary scientists still can't agree on whether this is an ape-man-baby or a donkey's skull.
What about "Lucy"?
The latest in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy" but no apes. Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools humans are found.
At best, even if something looking to be half human and half ape were discovered there is no way to prove that it is an ancestor of either mankind or apes. It is entirely possible that some extinct creature had a skeletal structure, or even DNA, that looks like a cross between the two breeds. Similarity does not equal origins. This is interpretation, not facts.
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”
(David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354)
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. . . There is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”
(Richard Leakey, PBS Interview)
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
(Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216)
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.”
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.)
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”
(E.R. Leach; Nature 293:19, 1981)
Evolution has no good explanation for how something as complex as life arose from nothing. Simply stated, life either comes from life or it does not. Creation and all empirical evidence teaches the former, evolution teaches the latter. For evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life at some point in the past. Pasteur showed over 100 years ago that this does not happen (remember the flies-coming-from-garbage theory?). What we see in reality is that life does not spontaneously generate from non-life. Life from life, kind from kind, just as the Bible teaches.
Another thing missed in this idea of parts is that life cannot come into being just by getting the right ingredients together. An airplane is millions of non flying parts put together by design to fly. In the same way, we are millions of nonmoving parts that live! Life cannot evolve from death. The only difference between a live body and a dead one is . . . what? It just stops being alive. Making the physical parts necessary for life does not make life.
Many scientists recognize this fact, and the naturalist theories conjured up to explain the problem only highlight evolution's bankruptcy as a theory. Fred Hoyle, the originator of the steady state universe theory (which he later abandoned), in his book Lifecloud: the Origin of Life in the Universe, lists evidence why it would be impossible for life to begin here on earth, and then presents a theory that life originated on comets! Francis Crick, who received the Noble Prize for his discovery of the DNA molecule, fills the first half of his his book, Life Itself, with reasons why life could not originate on our planet—and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets ("panspermia")!
“Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter.” (Harold Urey - partner in the famous Miller-Urey experiment where life was hoped to be created artificially from a chemical mixture designed to be similar to that of earth's early stages. Not only did the experiment not simulate the more harsh environment, even in a controlled setting it failed to produce amino acids that could form proteins in water.)
“These seven assumptions by their very nature are not capable of experimental verification: 1. Non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.”
(G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution.Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 6,7 and 150.)
Time and chance are the creators of evolutionists. The idea is that given enough time, anything possible will happen. But will it really? Consider: How long do you suppose it would take 1,000,000 monkeys typing at 100 wpm for 24 hours a day to type the first four words of a Shakespeare play by chance? Estimates are somewhere around 800,000,000,000,000 years. That's a long time for four words! Now imagine a DNA strand containing the equivalent of 500,000 pages of words being formed by chance (chance cannot actually "do" anything of course - it is merely a description of odds). The actual odds of the DNA of a simple microorganism randomly reaching required specificity is 1 in 10 to the 78,000th power. How high are these odds? Consider that the number of atoms in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power. And it gets even worse.
The evolutionist says that favorable mutations, the kind that do not harm or instantly kill (which almost all of them do), could have changed non-living proteins into the life we see all around us today - if given enough time. Could it? Bear in mind that mutations are additive, that is they must not only be favorable, but they must work together favorably and continually until the organism changes into its present form. The odds against just 3 favorable mutations developing in an organism are 1 in 10 to the 21st power. The entire ocean does not contain enough atoms to match those odds! The odds of 4 developing are 1 in 10 to the 28th power. Now the entire Earth is too small! The odds against life developing randomly are 1 in 10 to the 280th power, this is beyond the entire universe's capacity to match. To make a complete horse is 1 in 10 to the 3,000,000th power!
“The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.”
(Sir Frederick Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1993)
“It is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, ‘a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe’ -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare.”
(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution 1959)
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
(Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1937).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1945)
"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
(Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences)
The opposite of chance is design. If you were walking along a desert plateau and stumbled upon a wristwatch what would you assume to be the origin of that watch? Would you guess that after billions and billions of years the sand was melted into a perfectly formed face, stray minerals then gathered to form metal parts and a dead animal's skin dried up and formed a band around it? Or, would you say someone designed and created it?
But what happens when we see DNA strands a thousand times more intricate than that watch? What about the human body that is made up of 206 bones, 600 muscles, 2,000,000 nerve fibers, 100,000,000,000 nerve cells, 400,000,000,000 feet of blood vessels - a body that contains as much design as a Boeing 747? When we see a diversity in life a million times more precise and complicated? What are we to assume? TIME and CHANCE of course!
In no area of science is design thought to be by chance. Design implies a designer, and the greater the design the greater the creator. Yet even given evolution's time and chance how many differing designs would have to evolve at the exact same time to produce an eye? How many different designs must have come into being to form a woodpecker's beak and the instinct to peck? What about the shock mounting that prevents it from beating its brains out? What about the food organisms that evolved to be found where it was pecking? And what was going on while those designs were "evolving"? What about the shark that has its teeth picked clean by smaller fish? If it takes natural selection and time and chance to have these designs come into being then how do these animals survive the process??? Even the smallest life forms like bacteria have bodies with hundreds of moving parts and assembly instructions carried out by even tinier molecular motors. This level of complexity was unimagined in Darwin's time (he thought it was absurd to think that even the eye could have evolved, yet he continued to believe in evolution because he could "imagine" a nerve becoming sensitive to light - as if that is even close to the specified complexity of the eye).
“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
(Herbert P. Yockey, “Self Organization, Origin-of-life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 91, 1981, 16.)
"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
(Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of rocket science)
The Cambrian Explosion refers to the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago (following the standard evolutionary timeline). Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years. Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of life forms show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.
Evolution is considered believable by many because of the amount of time proponents believe has been available for change - but evolution cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the complexity increase that took place during this explosion of life. Five million years is like a blink of an eye when it comes to the evolutionary timeline. Some might claim that Precambrian creatures existed but never fossilized. Considering the variety of creatures suddenly appearing out of nowhere (and remaining unchanged) from this explosion, this explanation is found wanting.
"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. ... To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.315).
"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
(Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).
"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. . . . All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Precambrian riddle." (Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20).
"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences."
(Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)
"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal."
(Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).
"By 1990, for example, new dates obtained from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years."We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?"
(Nash, J. Madeleine [journalist], "When Life Exploded," Time, December 4, 1995, p74. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/951204/cover.html).
Darwin hoped the fossil record would someday justify his ideas (which were based only on observable changes within species, not change in kinds). To say that it did not is an understatement. In fact, today there is less evidence for evolution than there was 120 years ago! What we see is extinction, not evolution. We see an overall decrease in complexity, not an increase. We see more groupings of animals, not less. We see sudden appearances of new species, not gradual overlapping speciation. We see no unequivocal transitional forms between the species, only variation within species - just like we do today.
Evolutionists attribute fossil layering to large epochs of time passing. They must, for evolution requires huge amounts of time. So, they date the rocks the fossils are found in, then date the fossils by the rocks! How can we be sure of any dates past the history of mankind? How can we calibrate a dating process without fixed dates from millions of years ago? We have found whole trees growing up through fossil layers supposedly tens of millions of years old. That's an old tree! We have found layers out of order. We have found mixed layers, missing layers, and layers doubled. The so-called geologic column is more artistic than scientific.
Evolutionists point to the geologic column to prove the vast amount of time it took for these creatures to move from one era to another. What may really be there are layers of creatures that all died at the same time. Consider - what is required for fossilization? Dirt, water, creatures, rapid mixing, and burial. Creatures that are fossilized do not have time to decompose. If there was a huge flood and all life on the planet was killed instantly in mud and water, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, the lowest layer would be immobile one celled creatures that could not move. Then sea creatures that could not escape to land. Then slower forms on land for the same reason that they could not escape quickly. At the top we would see the larger animals, ones that could get to the tops of mountains. And of course, that is exactly what we see.
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
(Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, ch. 9)
"In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, ch. 2)
"Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
(S. J. Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, Evolution, Erratic Pace")
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
(S. J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977 p.14)
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
(Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89)
It is important to remember that the evolution debate is not about variants within kinds (examples would include dog breeding, or the famous peppered moth). These do nothing for evolutionist arguments because they are not transitions between kinds (a fish into a monkey, a lizard into a bird, etc.). Many of us have heard the story of the Peppered moth. This moth hid from predators by blending well with surrounding trees . . . until pollution caused the trees bark to turn black. Now the peppered moth stood out more than the rare black colored ones. So guess what happened? The peppered moth became more rare than the black moth. Evolutionists love to point to the peppered moth and say, "We see evolution going on even today."
As was stated earlier, it is not change within kinds that sparks the debate. This is an example of favorable changes within a species. Bible believers have known this as long as anyone else (in fact the Bible taught it in Genesis!). This is, however, a far cry from macro-evolution's moves from one species to another. All the peppered moth shows is natural selection... a peppered moth is still a moth. It does not change into a black cat to survive! Speciation shows clearly that the lines between species are not blurred with scores of intermediary "links" between them, how else could we tell them apart?
For something to change it must first exist. There is a lot more to a given gene than one might imagine. For example, between two human parents there exists enough variation inherent in their genes to produce 102,017 children without a single twin! Genetic mutation does not change an organism into another creature. Change is only seen within kinds. It is important to note here that current biological taxonomy assumes evolution. Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. May or may not be morphologically distinct. A Genus refers to a single species, or a monophyletic group of species, which is separated from other taxa of the same rank by a decided gap (morphology, or some other characteristic - even behavior). If species belong to the same genus, they are considered to be descended from a common ancestor - thus "kinds" are closer to the "family" taxa than "species" or "genus" which often rely on evolutionary theory to even differentiate them. Thus, humans are considered members of the family Hominidae which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, as well as many extinct species. Originally the group was restricted to humans with apes being placed in a separate family.
Perhaps you have heard the argument that "95% of monkey DNA is the same as a human's."
Well, for one we are about 30% close to a flower when we are in the womb so what does that prove? That we are composed of matter and so is everything else. Big deal! It's like saying that a dictionary is a poem because they both use words. If that were so, we should expect it to be commonplace to see monkey-babies coming from humans, and human-babies coming from monkeys. Instead we see that DNA, while made out of the same material, is programmed to replicate itself every time.
Further, studying parts does not give us the whole picture. If we study bone structure we are related to the apes. If we study Lysosome levels we are related to chickens. If we study blood in vertebrates we are related to worms. If we study our eyes we are related to squids. Amino Acids? Crocodiles and chickens are now brothers!
"Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
(Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354)
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."
(Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).
"The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. . . . Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition . . . "
(Goldschmidt, Richard B., [late Professor of Genetics, University of California, Berkeley], "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p.97).
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen."
(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], p.hoenix: London, 1996, p.95).
To show just how far evolutionists are willing to go to prove there is no God, I give you the Hopeful Monster Theory. This theory was laughed out of the scientific community when it first appeared quite some time ago, until it was all the evolutionists had left. Renamed"Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Quantum Evolution" for better marketability, the theory popularized by Harvard professor Steven Gould states that the gaps in the fossil record are caused by huge jumps in evolution over short periods of time (to explain the lack of fossil evidence). What can be said to this? Like gradualism, it's never been observed. It only attempts to explain the absence of evidence for Darwin's theory. Now, without any empirical evidence for Darwin's theory why even propose a new never-before-seen theory?
“We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
(S. J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977 p.14)
"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44)
"At the core of punctuated equilibria lies an empirical observation: once evolved, species tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years. The observation is by no means new, nearly every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of Species pointed to his evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record. But stasis was conveniently dropped as a feature of life's history to he reckoned with in evolutionary biology. And stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must be confronted-and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic notion of evolution itself. For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older (and ultimately biblically based) doctrine of species fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience."
(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.188-189).
Imagine a creature only as complex as a mousetrap that feeds on the animals it catches. Even in this incredibly simple "organism" all the parts must be in existence and functioning at the same time or it would die of starvation. This is irreducible complexity, and gradualistic evolution cannot sufficiently explain how even the simplest living beings on earth (which have thousands of working parts) could have come to survive.
Darwin himself admitted that the idea that natural selection could produce something like the eye is, "I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." He said that concept is "more than enough to stagger anyone." The eye is simply too complex to form over time - it would not be useful (and thus, according to evolution theory, "fit") until it was complete. In the meantime the parts are of no use in survival. But it gets worse for the evolutionist. The processes involved even in single cells are immensely complex as well. In all human experience, we know that it takes intelligence to write something like an encyclopedia or a computer program. We know that you cannot produce a computer by purely non-intelligent processes. Yet, the cell is much more complex than anything ever invented by the human mind. If one is consistent they would admit that the information that is present in cells necessarily points to the conclusion that they are the result of intelligent design.
It has been estimated, for example, that the chance development of a very simple system composed of just 200 integrated parts is 1 chance in 10 to the 375th power - basically an impossibility. This system would be considered "simple" compared to living systems.
The complexity of life is an argument against the naturalistic theory of evolution. Evolutionism cannot fully explain the information present in living organisms. Even Darwinists like Dawkins recognize that things "look" designed, but then they fly in the face of the evidence to argue that, ultimately, nothing is designed.
"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."
(Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species")
"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable."
(Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148)
"I'm not trying to smuggle religion in. Just because the conclusions have theological implication doesn't mean they follow from theological premises."
(Michael Behe [Christian], Bible Answerman Interview)
"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
(Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate in Physics)
"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power."
(Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics)
Darwin himself admitted the problem that evolution brings to the table philosophically. The problem is that evolutionary theory calls into question the trustworthiness of our ability to know reality. We do not trust random chance to produce anything trustworthy for doing so. Clouds in air currents may seem to form an arrow, but we do not think it is telling us the direction to the store. Thus, a brain formed by random chance has no epistemological trustworthiness - and it is brains that thought up evolution.
All evolution can explain, even in theory, is that favorable behavior linked to genetics might be passed on. However, behavior cannot simply be linked to true beliefs. For example, a man might very well want to get close to a roaring lion, but if he believes (falsely) that running away will bring the lion closer then he will run away. This will save his life, but his brain may not be reporting truth at all. Intelligent creation proposes that intelligence created intelligence and thus provides a foundation for trusting that which our intelligence thinks.
"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
(Darwin as quoted by A. Plantinga http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html)
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. . . . And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
(Haldane, J.B.S., "When I Am Dead," in "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays," [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209).
“Naturalistic evolution gives its adherents a reason for doubting that our beliefs are mostly true; perhaps they are mostly mistaken; for the very reason for mistrusting our cognitive faculties generally, will be a reason for mistrusting the faculties that produce belief in the goodness of the argument. . . . The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating: it provides for itself an undefeated defeater. It is therefore unacceptable and irrational.”
(Alvin Plantinga, http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html)
While evolution does not demand violence or immorality it certainly allows for it if one is consistent. If humasn are at the top of the chain of being then morality is simply our invention and anything that furthers our goals should be allowed. Especially if it means, say, purification of the race or survival of the fittest. Nietsche recognized this when he said, "I foresee something terrible. Chaos everywhere. Nothing left which is of any value. . . . If God indeed has died in the 19th century, two things will happen in the 20th century . . . universal madness will break out . . . it will become the bloodiest century in history.” (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft). This might sound like a shot in the dark, but it happened - deaths rose 470% in the 20th Century - Darwin's century as it were - and made the 20th century one of the darkest in human history.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider . . . than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
(Darwin, Charles R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," 241-242).
"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
(Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")
"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
(Sir Arthur Keith)
“But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the [moral] right to endure. . . . He who does not wish to fight . . . has not the right to exist.”
(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, 242)
“Nature does not wish that…a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts… to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf)
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination . . . Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. . . . excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
(Darwin, Charles R. "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," 205-206)
“Modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values…. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.”|
(Secular Humanist Manifesto)
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
(Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.)
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."
(Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.)
THE REAL ISSUE: Evolution is Based on Faith!
The driving force behind evolution is not science, it is naturalism - the idea that for something to be scientific it must be materially based. This narrow-minded view of science is very recent. Science began as a search for the truth and the last thing a truly scientific mind will do is rule out any possible scenarios - material or otherwise. Thus, it is faith based on humanistic desire that keeps evolution the only "legitimate" scientific theory - not science per se.
"The first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."
(Philip Johnson [Christian], "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, July / August 1999)
"Contrary to popular myths, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.”
(Alan Lightman, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists).
"On any given Sunday, around 41 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is perhaps 42 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it does not appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science."
(Sigma Xi statistics)
“The primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. . . . Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including . . . the human mind. And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion?”
(Gould, Steven J., "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.23-25).
“To believe in continued intervention of creative power is to make my deity `Natural Selection’ superfluous”
(Darwin, Charles, Letter to Lyell, Oct 20, 1859).
“There is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition.”
(Roosevelt, Theodore "History as Literature," 1913. http://www.bartleby.com/56/9.html)
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
(Nagel T., "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1997, p.130).
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(Richard Dawkins)
“But nowadays in our evolutionary conception of the universe there is absolutely no room for a Creator or a Ruler.”
(Karl Marx, MER, 295)
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)
"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)
“That our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy.”
(Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978)
“You have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith . . . Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."
(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. [Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984])
Conclusion
I think that instead of trying to tie this all up with my words I will simply leave the reader with the words of two men who changed the world. One was Charles Darwin whose evolutionary theory was the basis for Hitler's genocide, Stalin's murders, and the over 40,000,000 babies murdered in the womb in America alone. The other is from the Apostle Peter. Christianity paved the way for science and produced most of the greatest scientists of all time. It's moral, artistic, and intellectual achievements are unrivaled by any other religion, philosophy, or political system.
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(C. Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
“We did not follow cunningly devised fables,
when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
(The Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 1:16)
© Doug Beaumont 2005
http://www.souldevice.org
http://www.livingwaters.com/good
Thanks for the crapola Doug. I would refute your points, but whoever cut and pasted this crap isn't interested.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, instead of poking holes in evolution. Tell me how old is the earth? And prove that God exists.
GREAT comment by © Doug Beaumont 2005.
ReplyDeleteWHY SCIENCE FAILS TO EXPLAIN GOD?
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks
one of his new students to stand.
"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.
"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you
can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could
in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.
[No answer]
He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even
though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
[No answer]
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip
of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In
philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.
Let's start again, young fella."
"Is God good?"
Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.
From... God...
That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? The elderly man runs his bony
fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student
audience.
"I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and
gentlemen."
He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this
world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
Who created evil?
[No answer]
Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the
terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
Who created them? "
[No answer]
The professor suddenly shouts at his student.
"WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"
The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face.
In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
[No answer]
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom
like an aging panther.
The class is mesmerized.
"Tell me," he continues,
How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all
time?
The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the
world.
All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the
death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all
over the world, isn't it, young man?
[No answer]
Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?
Pause.
"Don't you?"
The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, Is God
good?"
[No answer]
"Do you believe in God, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks.
"Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses
you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have never
seen God, Have you?
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your God?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God...in
fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
[No answer]
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling.
According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Where is your God now?"
[The student doesn't answer]
"Sit down, please."
The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard!
Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are
making, sir. Now I've got a question for you.
"Is there such thing as heat?"
Yes, the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The
second Christian continues.
You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white
heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'.
We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any
further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would
be able to go colder than 458 - - You see, sir, cold is only a word we
use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
"Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is
not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness?
What are you getting at...?
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and
it's called darkness, isn't it?
That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness
isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me
a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before
him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us
what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
"The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"
The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to
regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself.
He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains.
That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a
bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It
uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully
understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant
of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
"Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbour
who has been reading it.
"Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts,
professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of
morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No."
Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"
The Christian pauses.
"Isn't evil the absence of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is
temporarily speechless.
The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we
all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work
through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing?
The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, choose good over
evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I
absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological
factor as being part of the world equation because God is not
observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world
is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian
replies.
"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student
a silent, stony stare.
"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but
a priest?"
"I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical
discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin.
"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena.
Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar.The Christian remains standing until the commotion
has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may
I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, Oxygen, molecules,
atoms, the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly,
crumbling tutor.
Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt
the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"
No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. It
appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's
brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no
brain."
Absence of heat IS cold. Absence of light IS darkness. The reason is that the labels of hot and cold are just opinions. Take this gem for instance, "the sun only appears bright because everything around it is darker" If we were the hottest creatures in the universe, then everything around us would appear cold in relation to us, and we would have incentive to measure the concept of coldness.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, saying that coldness is the absence of heat is a little naive. It's like saying that slowness is the absence of speed, without considering the opposite. You could also say that speed is the absence of slowness. What you describe as hot and cold is on the x axis of a single plane of energy and the terms hot and cold are just ways to describe the frequency of energy in relation to where we are on the x axis.
The term "heat" means vibration of particles. Either you vibrate faster in relation to other particles, the same or less. Being hot or cold is an opinion of terms and we have ways of measuring our opinion with a thermometer, just as you can measure slowness as much as you can measure quickness.
We can see oxygen, when it combusts it creates the phenomenom that we label "fire." Human beings have brains, any student (if atheist by your analysis) can take a hammer to the professor's skull.
The reason why you are ditzy about evolution is your reluctance to break down the characteristics of evolution into simple terms. In the simplest term what we call evolution is the competition over energy. All organisms are vectors for protein, nothing more, nothing less.
Proteins collapsed into complex structures in a primordeal soup as the energy from acid rain, lightning and the sun energized the molecules to coalesce. As time went on either the molecules lacking an electron outnumbered molecules with a spare one, or vice versa. Anyway molecules left hanging changed forms over millions of years, growing more complex, seeking to complete that covalent bond that they lacked whilst being given doses of chaos from the environment. I mean what is a million years to a molecule? As flashes of lightning change the molecular structure over the millenia the primordial stew becomes a statistical testbed. Every lightning bolt might have reconfigured the molucular makeup, giving a chance for odder, more exotic structures to form. Possibly in a rare development the molecules formed a crystaline structure that can latch onto random free bonds. The crystals in turn began turning on each other when the free bond molecules dried up. A few more blasts into our lightning milkshake and we see that the crystals take on forms that appear to have motivation. A few more modifications and viruses are thus born.
We are only proteins and you can do a thought experiment to do it. You can see it this way - if women chose men indiscriminately so that the average man could get sex from thousands of women without the need to impress the opposite sex, compete with other males, gather food, gain shelter, heck without even needing to move that "man" would eventually evolve into a pile of flesh. Without the need for arms, legs, a mouth or even a brain the man is reduced to being a DNA ball, and thus has every incentive to become a brainless penis. If there is no need for it, the appendage will go away. This only shows that a human's ability to walk, talk and build are only features developed under the strain of both sexual and natural competition. Without the pressure to retain those features, the organs lose importance and less energy will be devoted to them and more to DNA/sperm production. In a way, the ultimate man is in fact a primative pouch of slime.
Religion and other constructs are old ways for communities to regulate habitat, food and esepecially sex (the propigation of individual proteins). Men want the protection of a community so that their offspring are not exposed to wandering, retalitory males, and gives their protein decendants a better chance to spread further. The concept of "community" is just an implied agreement between the males to obey the limitations of the gathered resources. No offense to the modern woman but primative males were probably much like the high school jocks of today, aggressive, short tempered, brutal. The "community" offers the opportunity of food, habitat and sex with the caveat that you in turn only pursue your limited fair share. The worst type of male is one who manipulates food, habitat and sex from the community without giving anything back. This type of male is the greatest threat because he can easily erode the balance of cooperation between the males in the community. The established males become jealous and more violent as they fight for diminished resources. All out wars over the remaining resources can crumble a tribe as women are coveted, food horded and bastard children abandoned/murdered.
If you are a male in order to join the community and gain the benefits of food, habitat and sex you must prove to the established males that you are not a predatory wolf that will put on a facade and grab as much food, habitat and sex without giving anything back. Often rituals are established in order to indoctrinate a male into a tribe and give jealous males the small consolation that the new member will abide by the same laws as they do. Rituals also exist for women in order to keep them from wandering and exciting the rivalry between the tense males.
The need to know that your fellow man is not hording food, habitat and sex is paramount, because for one thing cheats must be cancelled from the community as fast as possible and the second thing is that through their obedience you can tell whether or not it is safe for you to cheat, or to exert your dominance over them. Dominance of a male over others gives the advantaged male the right to acquire more resources fairly than others. So in effect the dominant male's "fair share" is proportionately larger than the other males, and thus spurs the underling males to compete to gain the dominant spot. Often it is this dominant male and his spies that regulate the cheaters.
The secret pact between males in a sense creates a reverse cartel, where in this case everyone agrees to take as little as possible, but the incentive to snag more is irresistable since sex is irresistable. Sex, in this case can be thought of as a pseudonymn for existence. Their very existance relies on it. Through offspring, you exist.
Dominant males can only patrol so much. A few cheaters are bound to impregnate a few wild females. As the tribe gets even bigger the dominant males need a way to make their presence known at all times without the need of constant patroling of wandering females. Religion, that of punishment for disobeying the limitations of the community, and reward for accepting its constrictions by the symbolic presence of a leader is just this system. The dominant male or someone acting as a surrogate must take advantage of a human's innate ability to see symbolism so that the subordinate males will feel guilt, shame and fear for cheating the community out of food, sex and habitat without the leader even being present! Over time, as oral tradition becomes more sophisticated to encompass whole foreign tribes and as more males learn of ways to beat the system "I was bewitched! The woman bewitched me!" the rituals become ever more complicated, the religous furnishings ever more elaborate and God ever more wrathful at men who impregnate women and skip town. Good and evil, like your concept of hot and cold, exist as opinions in relation to your current stance. Impregnating a woman and leaving town is bad for the community, and bad for the woman burdened to raise a child and forced to take in a man desperate for sex to become a stepfather. However, from an evolutionary perspective it's good for the biological father. All the breeding, none of the drain of resources. This is also why there is an inner resentment of males successful at this flee tactic, and why courts nowadays are used more often to wrangle in deadbeats.
Unsavory concepts such as murder are also just an opinion whether good or bad. So many people see murder as something detrimental that we have accepted it as a action deserving the worst of penalties.
It's late tho. I'm tired.
Thanks Anon, great post, I didn't realize the thread was still alive.
ReplyDeleteFundies are easy to squash in an intellectual forum.