Saturday, August 12, 2006

Why I Can't Accept Evolution As Evidence of God

Found this article titled In evolution, Americans are big non-believers quite interesting. One of the questions in the comment section motivated me to register with the Globe and Mail website in order to answer it. The email message that I received said that it might take up to 24 hours for approval before the comment is posted. I wonder if my two comments will ever be posted? Time will tell, I guess. Meanwhile, I will post my response here; just in case it doesn't get published at the comment spot.

Before I post it, I wanted to say that the people here in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia have been so nice, welcoming and personable. Maybe it's because they don't know that we are Americans? I say this because if you go to the above link to the comment section, you will read what they really think of Americans; and they express particular disdain for Christians!!

Darn. I'll have to report this to my husband when he returns from golfing. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to hear about this. It will burst his bubble of Canadian hospitality for sure!

Here was the question:

I don't understand why religious fanatics can't accept evolution as evidence of God.


Notice the label of fanatics attributed by the commenter. It gets even worse. Christians are labeled as "illiterate," "ignorant," "uneducated," "superstitious," "myth-believers," etc. You get the picture.

However, I liked what the commenter J Luft from Calgary, Canada wrote:
Once again Canadians are showing their profound arrogance in thinking that their beliefs are the only correct ones. It is really more of a display of how completely Canadians have been indoctrinated in being unwilling to accept the views of others. Typical, though.

My answer included links to several blogposts here:

Evolution Is Often The "Religion" Of The Unbeliever

Debate? Or Talking Past Each Other?

I also included a summary from the first link that directly answers the question:

Let me share with you why my investigation of theistic evolution turned me away from such a concept.

In addition to this, there are some articles written by Greg Koukl on the subject of theistic evolution in the archive section at my message board. This may provide more detailed reasons for you to see my points.

Why I reject theistic evolution:

Jesus believed in and spoke about the Genesis account of Creation. That alone should be enough for Bible-believing, Word of Truth Christians.

Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?

Microevolution, the indication that there is a change, a progression involving different directions among various species that we can track historically is of no consequence with respect to biblical Christianity. It's the unsubstantiated myth of macroevolution that presents rational, logical as well as theological objections. One day this unmitigated nonsense will be totally rejected by the scientific community.

In this post, I will focus in on the theological objections to theistic evolution. A Christian (IMHO) cannot believe that he is a cosmic accident and at the same time believe in the sovereign God and the Creator God. Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a non-human ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man's creation in Genesis 2:7. Man did not evolve but rather was created from the dust of the ground. How can I know for sure? As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down.

Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10.) Jesus Christ's words have the authority to be trusted in this particular matter as surely as His words can be trusted in other matters.

Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 reveals God's love for us through Christ the Redeemer. As far as Christianity is concerned, if there's no creation, then there's nothing to redeem. If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis. Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly rejects such a notion.

35 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Oops! I had to re-submit my comments at the Globe and Mail website and eliminate the html links that I included. I just read this at the bottom of the comment section:'

"Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment
Editor’s Note: Globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject, in its entirety, the appearance on this website of each comment. Allowed comments are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. HTML is not allowed. Comments that we will not allow include the following: comments that include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other participants in these forums; comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libelous statements."


How interesting that they don't accept html links! I thought that Canada was a liberal, socialist-leaning country. Why would they want to prevent links from their readers and commenters?

Hmmm.....

Seems strange to me...

Boo said...

You claim to be addressing theistic evolution and then toss out the "theistic" part with statements like this:

"If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis."

Theistic evolution does not say we come from nothing and go to nothing, it just says evolution is part of what's driving us there.

"Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?"

If theistic evolution is true, then it's the former. If God uses evolution to work His will then by definition none of it is an accident. What science says is that from a naturalistic perspective it appears that the mutations that play a part in evolution happen by chance, because the naturalistic perspective is all that science can address.

"Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant."

Other than that all scientific evidence points to an old earth, of course. And that several elements of the story appear to have been drawn from the Babylonian creation myth. And that the second account right after Genesis 2:4 contradicts the first one in some areas.

"As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down."

Unless it's... an analogy, of course. All analogies break down if you push them far enough.

"Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- (John 1:3;

Or He just meant that male and female is part of the design, excepting always the exceptions, and was making a point about divorce and didn't want to get bogged down in an extensive scientific discussion that no one present would have understood.

But this is nothing that hasn't gone in one ear and out the other several times already. Which seems to be the point of your earlier "Truth" post: that your Biblical worldview does not allow you to embrace certain facts, (like, say, ignoring some Slavs beating up on some gays to make the gay community's subsequent appeal for police protection seem sinister) and compels you to change the definitions of certain terms (like taking the theistic out of theistic evolution). Very postmodern.

Juan Buhler said...

> Evolution Is Often The "Religion" Of The Unbeliever

I find it funny that you would reference that post of yours, given how the comments thread there ends. You dropped the discussion there, as you have done several times in the past, with me and with others.

In any case, good for you for not accepting evolution as evidence of god. Neither do I.

Juan Buhler said...

> If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we > are nothing under any objective analysis.

Not that it matters, but this is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that coming from "nothing" and going to "nothing" means we are "nothing."

I say that it doesn't matter because you are using it as part of a circular argument anyway: you believe something that the Bible says because another part of the Bible say so.

Christinewjc said...

I am traveling today so I don't have much time to reply. But I wanted to point out that I was stating why I can't accept (macroevolution) Darwinism as "evidence for God" because that was the question the person on the Globe comment section asked.

Well I've got to run. But there is much more to it, and much more evidence (look up Simon Greenleaf's evidence for the resurrection of Christ, for one) that truly shows the evidence for God to mankind.

Phronk said...

So the comments on one article have shaped your opinion about an entire country? And you think the fact that one Canadian web site doesn't allow HTML has something do with the country's political leanings?

Seriously?

Anyway, no point in debating evolution with you again. I still find it strange that you do admit that "micro" evolution exists, but deny "macro" evolution. You realize they're exactly the same process, right? If micro exists, so does macro. Unless you have evidence that evolution magically stops when it reaches a certain point, in which case the scientific community would love to hear it.

Christinewjc said...

Canada: "The No Free Speech Zone."

Little surprise that the Globe and Mail didn't publish my comment. They have now "closed down" the comment section with a note to "write a letter to the editor."

Yeah right. I'll waste my time doing that...

Here's another perfect example of Canada's liberal-bent, socialistic governmental rule of preventing the free speech of those with whom they disagree with. It appears that if you open your mouth to proclaim the biblical truth about homosexual behavior being wrong and your accompanying website isn't "locked in step" with the pro-homosexual agenda mantra, they can use their new "laws" to sue in order to dissuade any dissenting views from getting out there with the true purpose of silencing dissenting voices!! (Now we know why 39% of Americans who don't believe in evolution...at least have the free speech right to say it!!.

Here, in America, Christians often get verbally bashed for their beliefs but Canadian Christians not only get silenced on "politically incorrect" views, they also get sued and fined!! Sheesh!!

Thank God for our First Amendment!

Read and weep for Canadian Christians:

O Canada? NO, Canada!


When an unapologetically conservative talk show host in Alberta, Canada's most conservative province, posted a letter on his website, the feathers flew. Rev. Stephen Boisson's letter criticized the main aspects of the homosexual agenda in Canada. Furious, a professor at the University of Calgary filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The petulant prof wants to shut down three websites--concernedchristians.ca, freetospeak.ca and freedomradionetwork.ca.

So far, Craig Chandler, the talk show host, has faced legal costs approaching $100,000. His fees could run as high as $250,000. "The thing about a Human Rights Commission complaint is that it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, you still have to foot the bill. If I want to get our money back, I have to take them to civil court," he said. And that, Chandler points out, will only cost more money. This is another powerful example of how the left misuses government to harass Christians and suppress free speech on important public issues. Canada does not have a First Amendment. We do. But for how long?


Hey my Canadian Christian brothers and sisters! Don't loose heart...stay strong and steadfast! Here's a book for you to order!

Order Your Copy Now
The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality

Christinewjc said...

Phronk stated, "You realize they're exactly the same process, right?"

No. They are not. Even Dictionary.com admits that much.

Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Many evolutionists have admitted that the connection between the two is an extrapolation of the evidence.

Extrapolation: n 1: (mathematics) calculation of the value of a function outside the range of known values

2: an inference about the future (or about some hypothetical situation) based on known facts and observations.

Main Entry: in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-r&ns
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former
2 : something inferred; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference —see also permissive presumption at PRESUMPTION
3 : the premises and conclusions of a process of inferring

Presumption: Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
Pronunciation: pri-'z&mp-sh&n
Function: noun
: an inference as to the existence of a fact not certainly known that the law requires to be drawn from the known or proven existence of some other fact.

Macroevolution is fact?

NADA!!

Boo said...

"Phronk stated, "You realize they're exactly the same process, right?"

No. They are not. Even Dictionary.com admits that much.

Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."

This does not show that they are different processes, just that one is on a larger scale. If you believe that microevolution occurs but that macroevolution does not, then you must believe that some outside force intervenes to prevent changes in species from building beyond a certain point. What is this force?

Christinewjc said...

Formation of a new taxonomic group is very different from a new subspecies.

They are not the same, Boo.

Another point:

Relatively small genetic variations does not have the creative power to form a "new taxonomic group." Thus, we have the extrapolation of the evidence.

Boo said...

So what is the force that keeps changes from accumulating?

Keep in mind that speciation has already been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Phronk said...

Ok lemme get this straight:

In one post, you make the inference that because a heated comments section on one Canadian newspaper's web site got shut down, the entire country of Canada is a "no free speech zone."

In the next post, you imply that inference is somehow a bad thing.

Weeeeird.

I do agree that some inferences are bad. Like yours. Others are perfectly valid forms of knowledge. Would you bet money that the earth will revolve around the sun tomorrow? If so, you've made an inference based on your present knowledge. An inference that is almost certainly true.

Though I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. ;)

Oh, and the dictionary may have different words for "pond" and "lake", but they're still both just bodies of water. If you believe that ponds are possible, you believe that lakes are possible.

I'd like to hear your response to Bob (and me), though: What force is arbitrarily stopping evolution at a certain point?

And how 'bout that fact that "macro" evolution has been observed? So it's not "just" inference.

Phronk said...

(sorry, meant Boo, not "Bob")

Christinewjc said...

Boo said, "So what is the force that keeps changes from accumulating?"

I think that you are asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of "what force keeps changes from accumulating." You can accumulate all the "changes" within a species that you want, but there are not any observable changes from the fossil record from one taxonomic group to the other.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk,

What's so "weird" about my assumption that religious speech is often discouraged at the Globe and Mail site?

When I registered, I noticed that there were absolutely no categories that had to do with faith, religion or values in the "interest" section. Now that's pretty sad!

Phronk said...

But Christine, you are contradicting yourself here.

You say "micro" evolution exists. If it does, then it should continue to exist, and get to the point where it becomes "macro", unless something stops it at an arbitrary point.

Thus, there should be transitional forms in the fossil record, and if we look long enough, we should be able to directly observe transition from one species to another.

Then you say there are no transitions fossils...which contradicts your own view that evolution exists.

I can help you solve this contradiction, though. Do some research in biology. You'll find that you're actually wrong - there are plenty of transitional fossils! Phew, what a relief! Your belief in evolution is saved!

Phronk said...

That's not what I said was weird. What's weird is that you made the inference that one newspaper's comments section applies to the entire country of Canada, then in the very next post, imply that inferences are a bad thing.

Maybe those categories don't exist because there's not enough demand for them. They can't have a section for everything. I'm interested in comic books, but I don't complain that the local newspaper doesn't have a comic book section. And if I did, it wouldn't be a complaint about the whole country.

Does every single newspaper in the United States have a religion section?

Phronk said...

That's not what I said was weird. What's weird is that you made the inference that one newspaper's comments section applies to the entire country of Canada, then in the very next post, imply that inferences are a bad thing.

Maybe those categories don't exist because there's not enough demand for them. They can't have a section for everything. I'm interested in comic books, but I don't complain that the local newspaper doesn't have a comic book section. And if I did, it wouldn't be a complaint about the whole country.

Does every single newspaper in the United States have a religion section?

Boo said...

"I think that you are asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of "what force keeps changes from accumulating." You can accumulate all the "changes" within a species that you want, but there are not any observable changes from the fossil record from one taxonomic group to the other."

Christine- there are documented instances of new species arising, as in the link I provided. Thus, there is evidence for a lot more than just "changes within a species." If you would do research on the subject, you would discover that there is a consistent branching pattern for all "taxonomic groups" which occurs exactly as evolution predicts.

Christinewjc said...

Nope Boo. It's speculation and extrapolation that is being put forth as "evidence" for which you espouse. I don't need to read your link anyway. There is adequate information that I have already read that shows how wrong you are.

Stephen C. Meyer's paper discusses this specific issue in his paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.

Here is a portion:


The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
Stephen C. Meyer

Introduction

In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology (2003), Gerd B. Muller and Stuart Newman argue that what they call the “origination of organismal form” remains an unsolved problem. In making this claim, Muller and Newman (2003:3-10) distinguish two distinct issues, namely, (1) the causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and (2) the causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life. To distinguish the latter case (phylogeny) from the former (ontogeny), Muller and Newman use the term “origination” to designate the causal processes by which biological form first arose during the evolution of life. They insist that “the molecular mechanisms that bring about biological form in modern day embryos should not be confused” with the causes responsible for the origin (or “origination”) of novel biological forms during the history of life (p.3). They further argue that we know more about the causes of ontogenesis, due to advances in molecular biology, molecular genetics and developmental biology, than we do about the causes of phylogenesis--the ultimate origination of new biological forms during the remote past.

In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).

As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194).


What lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?

Read the rest of the paper at the link to find out how much good sense Meyer makes through his research!

Boo said...

"Nope Boo. It's speculation and extrapolation that is being put forth as "evidence" for which you espouse. I don't need to read your link anyway. There is adequate information that I have already read that shows how wrong you are."

Nope Christine, speciation and common decscent are observed facts. If you wish to ignore the evidence for them, that is your choice, but ignoring something doesn't make it not exist, unless you're REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY into postmodernism.

Hmmm...

I will my cable bill not to exist... I will my cable bill not to exist...

"What lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?"

Here's where the crucial distinction between theory and fact comes in. There is no scientific debate over the fact of common descent, or speciation or macroevolution or whatever you want to call it. There is considerable scientific debate over the mechanism whereby this fact occurs, which is theory. Scientists are always doing new research, publishing papers, debating ideas, and going back and forth on whether or not neo-Darwinism is adequate to explain current genetic diversity or what other mechanisms might be required. Intelligent Design is not a part of that debate because it does not meet the definition of science, cannot be tested, and there appears to be no evidence for "irreducible complexity," which is the cornerstone of the idea.

That new species have arisen is an observed fact. Explanations of how exactly they have done so is theory. Saying God did it is theology, not biology. Physical sciences cannot address theology because they are not equipped to do so. You can't calculate the square root of 1437 by reading Plato's Republic. Science deals with observation, not assigning meaning. Science can tell us it appears to be that the universe exists within an extremely fine set of parameters necessary to produce life. Whatever meaning anyone wants to assign to that fact is not a scientific issue.

Boo said...

And, as an afterthought, that is why the ID side will always lose in court. You may ignore the evidence, courts will not.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

Obviously you choose not to admit that Meyer is correct in most, if not all, of his assertions. I could cut and paste from his article, but anyone reading here has the link (posted above) to it so they will see that it is a philosophical debate more than a "scientific" one.

I have seen this time and time again, macroevolutionists will never admit the lack of fossil evidence for that portion of the theory. They will never admit that their a priori adherence to materialism, (no matter which direction the evidence leads, which is design)is the real reason why ID is rejected. The courts have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Darwinists false claims that ID is "religious" just like Creation. ID doesn't use the Bible for it's information, it uses what is seen through the evidence that points towards design. But that's the excuse that Darwinists have been able to use to eliminate ID from consideration. The design inference may only be an hypothesis at this point, but why should students be denied such an inference? You claim that the "inference from microevolution gives evidence for macroevolution" but you are unwilling to allow an inference from design? How prejudice of you! How biased! Get me a lawyer! It's a hate crime! You hate IDeists!

Hundreds of scientists claim that macroE is a bunch of hogwash (and I agree!). These brave souls are willing to put their careers, funding, reputations etc. on the line to show the truth about Darwinism's deficiencies; to the huge dismay, outright indignation, and obvious rage of their former "colleagues." There is a philosophical bias going on in scientific circles and now the public is seeing it firsthand.

One day the macroevolutionary "theory" will end up in the trash heap of history as the bogus fraud and deception that it is!

About theistic evolution. The reasons why I can't accept that either is because Jesus reiterates the CREATION of Adam and Eve, not the "evolution over billions of years" fairy tale that evolutionists foolishly want to believe. Radiometric dating is a concept created by man, not God. They are off by billions of years, too!

If some Christians want to believe in theistic evolution, so be it. But I'm not fooled by it.

Boo said...

"Obviously you choose not to admit that Meyer is correct in most, if not all, of his assertions. I could cut and paste from his article, but anyone reading here has the link (posted above) to it so they will see that it is a philosophical debate more than a "scientific" one."

Do you read my comments before responding to them? You already said you won't read my links yet you expect me to read yours. Meyer is correct that there is considerable debate over whether neo-Darwinism is sufficient to explain current genetic diversity. No one is denying this. Scientific theories are always being tested and refined. He misstates the problem slightly by not acknowledging that the "explosion" took place over several million years and that there is evidence of multicelled organisms in earlier periods:

Xiao, S., Y. Zhang, and A. Knoll (1998). "Three-dimensional preservation of algae and animal embryos in a Neoproterozoic phosphorite". Nature 391: 553-58.

but yes, scientific theories are debated and refined all the time. It's somewhat interesting that you would rely on this to critique evolution since it hinges on what you hold to be a nonbiblical and therefore untrue account of the earth's history- according to your beliefs there was no "Cambrian explosion." It's also interesting that Meyer's entire argument is negative: neo-Darwinism is not adequate, therefore Intelligent Design must be true. That's like saying Sikhism is inadequate, therefore Scientology must be the true religion.

There's a good critique of Meyer's article here:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Meyer.cfm

Among other things, they point out that Meyer's claim that new proteins and genes could not have arisen during the CE is contradicted by the fact that they have been observed arising now.

"I have seen this time and time again, macroevolutionists will never admit the lack of fossil evidence for that portion of the theory."

Let's ignore for a moment the vast amount of fossil evidence for "macroevolution" and say there isn't any. That still does not change this inconvenient fact:

Speciation. Has. Been. Observed. Happening. Now.

Scientists have seen and documented new species forming. Therefore, we know that speciation occurs. Therefore, we know that macroevolution occurs. There were several examples in the link I gave that you refused to read.

"They will never admit that their a priori adherence to materialism, (no matter which direction the evidence leads, which is design)is the real reason why ID is rejected."

Actually, scientists admit quite openly that science can only deal with the material world.

"The courts have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Darwinists false claims that ID is "religious" just like Creation."

Actually, the Dover trial was won was by getting Michael Behe on the stand and letting him hang himself. He openly acknowledged that he had his own personal definition of "theory" that varied quite a bit from the commonly accepted scientific definition, and that astrology would count as science under his definition.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId=online-news_rss20

"ID doesn't use the Bible for it's information, it uses what is seen through the evidence that points towards design."

By first making the unscientific assumption that design exists and that there is a standardized way to judge whether or not something in nature is designed. "Gee, this looks complicated" doesn't really count for much.

"The design inference may only be an hypothesis at this point, but why should students be denied such an inference?"

The Flying Spaghetti Monster inference is also a hypothesis at this point, why should science students be denied such an inference?

"You claim that the "inference from microevolution gives evidence for macroevolution" but you are unwilling to allow an inference from design? How prejudice of you! How biased! Get me a lawyer! It's a hate crime! You hate IDeists!"

Nope, that was Phronk. I claimed that the observance of macroevolution gives evidence for macroevolution. Phronk's micro-to-macro inference is superior to the design inference, however, in that Phronk's going from an observed phenomena to a conclusion, and design inference goes from an unproven assumption (that design in nature exists) to a conclusion (that design in nature explains observation XYZ). The case for design in nature however is either religious (it's in the Bible) or an entirely negative argument (current theory cannot explain diversity, so it must be design). Neither of those is scientific.

And btw, you already know I don't think we should have hate crimes laws.

"Hundreds of scientists claim that macroE is a bunch of hogwash (and I agree!)."

True, but they have a tendency not to be biologists. Also, try googling "Project Steve"

"There is a philosophical bias going on in scientific circles and now the public is seeing it firsthand."

There is a philosophical "bias" towards the idea that science can only work in terms of the natural, not the supernatural. No one has ever elucidated a method whereby science can reliably investigate the supernatural. If anyone ever does, they would become wealthy and famous beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

"About theistic evolution. The reasons why I can't accept that either is because Jesus reiterates the CREATION of Adam and Eve, not the "evolution over billions of years" fairy tale that evolutionists foolishly want to believe."

Jesus also cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season. Jesus had a tendency to employ metaphor.

Juan Buhler said...

Christine, let's make a thought experiment: Suppose that you saw clear evidence of speciation, or what you call "macroevolution." Suppose it was beyond doubt that it happens.

Would that change your mind? Are you open to that possibility?

Just curious.

Christinewjc said...

Ha! This is quite funny.

The "word verification" letters are:

nopeidxn

Add a few letters and you get:

nope, id x (often used to represent Christ) and n for Christian!

Does that answer your question Juan?

I will post a new blogpost that includes a chapter from a book that I have been reading that further explains why I believe that macroevolution is a fairy tale for adults.

Christinewjc said...

"Speciation" does not a show that one species changes into another completely different taxonomic group. This is where the fossil record is lacking in the evidence for that portion of the theory.

"In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194)."

from Stephen C. Meyer's paper

[Sometimes people have to read things three times before they get it!]

Phronk said...

Ah, OK, so you're not open to the possibility of anything that differs from your Bible, no matter how strongly the evidence supports it.

Then there is no point in talking with you. If your mind is that closed, then I guess you're completely stuck in your current beliefs. Whatever makes you happy, I guess, but there is no point in sticking around with someone who openly admits that they won't listen to counterarguments. And I don't see how you can be happy with a worldview where evidence absolutely doesn't matter. That seems like the saddest and most intellectually dead existence I could think of.

Why bother reading anything, then? Why bother having a conversation with anyone? Or a blog? If the final answer always comes down to the Bible, then there is no point in observing anything other than the Bible, right?

Whatever. Have fun with that. I just hope it doesn't destroy you when you wake up one day and realize that a large portion of your life has been devoted to something that's probably not true, and that you could have put that wasted effort into learning all the wonderful things about reality.

Christinewjc said...

Boo, Juan and Phronk,

Just because the evidence that I have found to believe in the steadfast faith of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Bible doesn't jibe with what each of you regard as "evidence," doesn't make my worldview false and your's true.

A funny thing happened on the way to my next blogpost.

I did a google search, hoping that I wouldn't have to type out the chapter from the book I have been reading. Lo and behold! I found the site of an evolutionist (he appeared to be a theistic evolutionist, btw) that included a point by point (so we're falsely told) refutation of many of the chapters in the book, including the one that deals with the foolishness of Darwinism.

But when I started reading the refutation, the person started out with a lie! An absolute, undeniable lie! It might take some time to counter-refute all that is written, but I will take my time and start with the obvious lie that the "refuter" put forth in a blogpost. I plan to post it either today or tomorrow.

Yes. I will surprise you all by posting this person's refutation of the chapter. But then, I will counter-refute a lot of what he said, as well as the lies and misinterpretations he put forth, too.

Just the fact that what he left out at the beginning of the article speaks volumes (IMHO) about how far Darwinists will go in lying about other people's quotes and books to make themselves look somehow "smarter", I guess.

Phronk, if you have tired of reading here and think that you have the absolute truth for what life is all about, then have fun going on your merry way.

Everything that you accused me of could also be said of you! You are stuck in your own beliefs (or, probably more likely what was spoon-fed to you by Darwiniacs), and you do not appear to be willing to branch out and see other possibilities. What you presume to be truth is just as much a faith position as what I have gleaned to be truth. The difference is that I have the infallible Word of God to back me up in my beliefs whereas you only have the word of a fallible man who lived over 150 years ago; a man who may have been sincere, but was sincerely wrong. But you go ahead and continue to believe in that fallible man's ramblings. I'll stick to the Man of Truth.

Boo said...

""Speciation" does not a show that one species changes into another completely different taxonomic group. This is where the fossil record is lacking in the evidence for that portion of the theory."

This post shows that you either a: don't understand what a "taxonomic group" is, or b: have no idea what "speciation" means.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taxonomic%20group

A taxonomic group refers to any grouping of related organisms from kingdom to phylum to order all the way down to species. Hence different species are different taxonomic groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Speciation refers to the arising of a new species. When speciation occurs, the taxonomic group of a new species appears. Speciation by definition gives rise to a new taxonomic group.

Speciation has been observed to happen in the wild, not just in the fossil record, but in the world that living scientists have observed firsthand. It is a fact. Denying that fact is silly.

If what you meant by "taxonomic group" was different orders or phyla arising from each other, that is not how evolution works. If a bird laid an egg and out came something that was biologically closer to a cat than a bird, that would provide strong evidence against the current theory of evolution. Evolution branches, it doesn't randomly jump to something completely different.

I'll try to explain this last to you once again: aside from the numerous errors in Meyer's paper, he is correct that there is considerable debate among scientists as to the mechanisms whereby evolution operates and what other forces or processes besides mutation and natural selection go into it. That is evolution as theory. Evolution as theory is always being debated and defined. That new species have been observed arising and that existing species all have common descent is a fact. This is evolution as fact. Evolution is both fact and theory. There is no scientific debate over the fact of evolution. The theory is the explanation of how the fact occurs. That theories are always being tested and refined does not mean they are "in crisis." Testing and refining theories is the normal way that science works.

And so, I wouldn't go trying to say that finding someone on the proevolution side who says something that isn't true is evidence against evolution itself, given how many untrue claims and assumptions you've made in this one post-thread.

Christinewjc said...

Boo said, "If what you meant by "taxonomic group" was different orders or phyla arising from each other, that is not how evolution works. If a bird laid an egg and out came something that was biologically closer to a cat than a bird, that would provide strong evidence against the current theory of evolution. Evolution branches, it doesn't randomly jump to something completely different."

But even with the "branching" of the theory of evolution, the points that Meyers makes in his paper include "the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms."

Meyers wrote:

" The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.

To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505).

As a result, debate now exists about the extent to which this pattern of evidence comports with a strictly monophyletic view of evolution (Conway Morris 1998a, 2003a, 2003b:510; Willmer 1990, 2003). Further, among those who accept a monophyletic view of the history of life, debate exists about whether to privilege fossil or molecular data and analyses. Those who think the fossil data provide a more reliable picture of the origin of the Metazoan tend to think these animals arose relatively quickly--that the Cambrian explosion had a “short fuse.” (Conway Morris 2003b:505-506, Valentine & Jablonski 2003). Some (Wray et al. 1996), but not all (Ayala et al. 1998), who think that molecular phylogenies establish reliable divergence times from pre-Cambrian ancestors think that the Cambrian animals evolved over a very long period of time--that the Cambrian explosion had a “long fuse.” This review will not address these questions of historical pattern. Instead, it will analyze whether the neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection, or other processes of evolutionary change, can generate the form and information necessary to produce the animals that arise in the Cambrian. This analysis will, for the most part, 2 therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion, or upon a monophyletic or polyphyletic view of the early history of life.


I apologize if I used the incorrect terminology.

Perhaps I should have used the term "taxonomic category," or "taxonomic classification."

According to dictionary.com:

speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

taxonomic category:

n : animal or plant group having natural relations [syn: taxonomic group, taxon]


tax·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tksn)
n. Biology pl. tax·a (tks)
A taxonomic category or group, such as a phylum, order, family, genus, or species.
[New Latin, back formation from taxonomy.]
Main Entry: tax·on
Pronunciation: 'tak-"sän
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural taxa /-s&/ also tax·ons
1 : a taxonomic group or entity
2 : the name applied to a taxonomic group in a formal system of nomenclature

no·men·cla·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nmn-klchr, n-mnkl-)
n.
A system of names used in an art or science: the nomenclature of mineralogy.
The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification: the rules of nomenclature in botany.

*******

About the new post that I planned to do and the Darwinist caught in a lie. The person picked out a few sentences (completely ignoring several important paragraphs before them) and claimed that the author started the chapter with those sentences. It was a blatant lie meant to make the author look foolish and/or "unscientific." The paragraphs that preceded the sentences that the "refuter" chose to focus on were quite important to the point(s) of the original author.

Perhaps it would be a waste of my time. Phronk is no longer interested in the debate here, you want to stick to your guns about "theistic" evolution, even when the Darwinists probably smirk behind your back about such a notion, and Juan is hung up on his "logical fallacy" arguments.

It would have made a great conversation piece though. More evidence and proof of the typical display of dishonesty from the Darwinist camp...

Boo said...

"But even with the "branching" of the theory of evolution, the points that Meyers makes in his paper include "the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms.""

And if you had read the article link I provided you would know that Meyer simply ignored evidence of Cambrian transitional forms:

"Meyer repeats the claim that there are no transitional fossils for the Cambrian phyla. This is a standard ploy of the Young-Earth Creationists (see Padian and Angielczyk 1999 for extended discussion of this tactic and its problems). Meyer shows a complete lack of understanding of both the fossil record and the transitional morphologies it exhibits (even during the Cambrian explosion; for a recent example of transitional forms in the Cambrian explosion see Shu et al. 2004) as well as the literature he himself cites. (This topic has been dealt with before, as with DI Fellow Jonathan Wells. See Gishlick 2002 at http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon2tol.html.)"

and that:

"Meyer attempts to argue that the "gaps" in the fossil record reflect an actual lack of ancestors for Cambrian phyla and subphyla. To support this, Meyer cites some papers by University of Chicago reasearcher Mike Foote. However, of the two papers by Foote cited by Meyer, neither deals with the Cambrian/Precambrian records (one concerns the Middle and Late Paleozoic records of crinoids and brachiopods, the other the Mesozoic record of mammal clade divergence), or even transitional fossils. Foote's papers deal with issues of taxonomic sampling: How well does a fossil record sample for a given time period reflect the biodiversity of that period? How well does a given fossil record pinpoint divergence times? Foote's conclusions are that we have a good handle on past biodiversity, and that divergence times probably match appearance in the fossil record relatively closely. But Foote's work utilizes organisms that are readily preserved. It doesn't deal with organisms that aren't readily preserved, a trait that almost certainly applies to the near-microscopic, soft-bodied ancestors of the Cambrian animals. According to Meyer's argument, which doesn't take into account preservation potential, microscopic metazoans such as rotifers must have arisen recently because they entirely lack a fossil record. Neither of Foote's papers supports Meyer's contention that the lack of transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian indicates a lack of ancestors. Lastly, it appears that fossils of the long-hypothesized small, soft-bodied precambrian worms have recently been discovered (Chen et al. 2004)."

The ncseweb Gishlick article further demolishes Meyer's claims by documenting extensive evidence of transitional forms both before and during the CE. Meyer arrived at his claim that there is no evidence by simply ignoring the evidence.

"I apologize if I used the incorrect terminology.

Perhaps I should have used the term "taxonomic category," or "taxonomic classification.""

Hmm... now you're not even reading your own writing:

"taxonomic category:

n : animal or plant group having natural relations [syn: taxonomic group, taxon]


tax·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tksn)
n. Biology pl. tax·a (tks)
A taxonomic category or group, such as a phylum, order, family, genus, or species."

See the last word there?

I'm guessing what your argument is, is that even if we have evidence for the emergence of new species, there is no evidence for how the phlya et. al. higher up in the taxonomic categories could have branched off? But there is. The articles I've linked show it, and that's just what I could find in a quick google search. An actual review of the scientific literature would show much more. We do have evidence of transitional forms, and the articles show examples to demonstrate that the ID claim that "new information" cannot arise in biology is false. If the ID case relies on claiming reality is other than it is, then ID does not belong in science classrooms.

"Phronk is no longer interested in the debate here, you want to stick to your guns about "theistic" evolution, even when the Darwinists probably smirk behind your back about such a notion, and Juan is hung up on his "logical fallacy" arguments."

I doubt all the Christian "Darwinists" are smirking behind my back, and I could care less if athiests are smirking behind my back. There are people who believe in young earth creationism and are also raging racists. Would you care if they were smirking behind your back? Do their racist beliefs invalidate your creationist beliefs?

Phronk seems to be frustrated that you've ignored the evidence you're presented with over and over and over and over and over again.

Me, I'm frustrated that you're presenting a version of Christianity that cannot deal with reality. Presenting Christianity as something that requires the believer to believe things that aren't true is not good witnessing.

Phronk said...

Phronk seems to be frustrated that you've ignored the evidence you're presented with over and over and over and over and over again.

Bingo. It's like talking to a brick wall. I'm interested in hearing what Christine believes and how she supports it, but it gets tiresome when she does not show the same courtesy to me.

But I would like to clear a few personal issues, since Boo is handling the scientific side of things quite well. Very nice, Boo.

Phronk, if you have tired of reading here and think that you have the absolute truth for what life is all about, then have fun going on your merry way.

See that's the thing - the fundamental (if you will) difference between us - I don't think I have an exclusive understanding of absolute truth. To do so would be dangerous, since I would be prone to ignoring evidence about reality, and my beliefs would never migrate closer to the truth. My beliefs are based on evidence, and evidence is constantly changing.

Everything that you accused me of could also be said of you!

This is false. See above.

You are stuck in your own beliefs (or, probably more likely what was spoon-fed to you by Darwiniacs), and you do not appear to be willing to branch out and see other possibilities.

Again, false. I am not stuck in my beliefs. Evolution is a falsifiable theory, and if evidence was revealed which proved evolution false, I would be happy to abandon it and start searching for a new theory. But, after all these years, nobody has found any good falsification for evolution, but there have been tons of supporting evidence found.

I am very willing to branch out to other possibilites. I hold many beliefs that mainstream science would strongly object to. They are, however, supported by high quality evidence, which is what matters when it comes to belief.

What you presume to be truth is just as much a faith position as what I have gleaned to be truth.

Not true. Nearly all evidence observed is consistent with what I believe. That is not true of your beliefs (whether you are aware of or understand the evidence or not). If faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then you possess much more than I do.

The difference is that I have the infallible Word of God to back me up in my beliefs whereas you only have the word of a fallible man who lived over 150 years ago; a man who may have been sincere, but was sincerely wrong. But you go ahead and continue to believe in that fallible man's ramblings. I'll stick to the Man of Truth.

As I've said before, then, it all comes down to whether your specific conceptualization of God exists or not. What you seem to forget is that you, Christine, are as fallible as Darwin, and so your beliefs are just as likely to be false.

I must also point out that Darwin was just the guy who first proposed the mechanism for evolution. It probably would have been discovered by someone else if he hadn't done it. Furthermore, it is the thousands of biologists who (intentionally or not) provide evidence for evolution with every new discovery made, large or small, that provide the real evidence for evolution. If Darwin had been wrong, we'd have forgotten him long ago. So I am not relying on the testimony of one man, but on decades of incremental research by people who actually know what they are doing.

This also applies to your criticism of the dude who misrepresented a few sentences. It is not the character of the men who do science that matters, but the science itself. I'm interested in seeing how you respond to such science (rather than accusing the writers of lying), which has found clear evidence for speciation in both the fossil record and modern life, and completely falsifies your intelligence design theory.

Juan Buhler said...

"...and Juan is hung up on his "logical fallacy" arguments."

This has to be the funniest answer from you that I ever got, thanks Christine.

I am like that, I sometimes get hung up trying for logical consistency and looking at evidence. Nobody is perfect, I suppose.

Maybe I should give up those earthly, unimportant things and accept Jesus.

Phronk is probably gone by now, but his point is exactly where I was going. You wouldn't accept evidence that contradicts what you believe now, even if you saw it yourself. Think about that, Christine, doesn't it seem at least a little bit insane to you?

GMpilot said...

The title of this thread is very revealing: "Why I CAN'T Accept Evolution..." That really says it all, and you have proved it in all your posts.

Boo and phronk have hammered their points home to you time and again. The facts are there. Christine. If you can't accept them, that doesn't necessarily make you right; it only makes you delusional.

As always, you never answer the questions directly. You circumvent them (the rant against Canada is typical), and when you're in a corner, ignore them. For someone who has the backing of the Great Celestial One, you're doing a poor job.
And you still haven't answered why the processes of microevolution cannot apply to the macro. You've come closer to doing so here than you ever have, but as has been shown, your arguments cannot stand by themselves.

OTOH, it's good to know that nothing has changed in my absence.