Ask Me Anything regarding the creation vs evolution debate. Creationist answers given.
- Thread starter studentofthemarkets
- Start date
- Status
Why? I asked you a non-scientific question.
The scientist you say is guiding you does at least give a creationist's response as the thread title promises. Problem is, creationism is theology not science, while of course evolution is science.
So why is it easier for you to accept something complex like the Universe needs a designer, but something which would have to be even more complex like a God, doesn't?
Can you give your answer without all the creationist's non-sequitur pseudo-science?
Just thought I'd repost what I wrote last night on Expiated's thread, "Problems with conventional evolutionary theory."
I am personally well acquainted with three creation scientists. Two of them have PhDs in their area of scientific expertise. Also, two of them have made known that there is much suppression in the academic world of any science that supports creation science or that contradicts the theory of evolution. One is a professor in a public university science department. He will not share with his colleagues that he believes that science supports a young earth creation and that science does not support evolution. He knows he will lose his job if he openly shares those evidences.
Ben Stein starred a film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film documents some incidences of suppression of scientists who believe Intelligent Design to be accurate scientifically. The film exposes only a small portion of the large scale deception that has gone on for a while now.
Here is an excerpt from a review of the film written by Mark Looy for Answers in Genesis:
"As a demonstration of how the evolution police can mete out injustice, the film’s first “persecutee” is an evolutionist himself: Richard Sternberg. He does not doubt evolution, yet Sternberg’s very act of allowing a peer-reviewed research paper that presented evidence for intelligent design to be published in a science journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) led to his forced resignation and a career “ruined.” Sternberg, with two PhDs, was the target of the anti-creationist group National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution (where Sternberg was a researcher), as these groups orchestrated an effort to have him expelled from his position."https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/expelled-review/
Some quotes for all you evolutionists to consider:
Karl Popper, a well respected evolutionist argued that "evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/691119 pg. 1
Michael Ruse is an evolutionist that wrote a book called The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Below are two quotes from him taken from this site: https://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is-a-religion
"Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom: none; cursor: pointer;">1
Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion."
The following quotes are from some reviews of Michael Ruse's book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, taken at this site:
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022553&content=reviews
“Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University, is one of the most stimulating writers on the never-ending cultural debate over evolution. Here, this self-professed ‘ardent Darwinian’ arrives at a surprisingly sympathetic view of the anti-Darwin crowd. They may be wrong, but they’re not quite as crazy as we smugly imagine.”—Jim Holt, New York Magazine
“In view of all that has been written, one might wonder what more there is to be said. Michael Ruse’s The Evolution–Creation Struggle represents a genuinely fresh perspective. Ruse, an eminent and well-respected historian and philosopher of biology, has over the course of several decades established himself as a vocal advocate for evolution… The task of Ruse’s book is to figure out why the evolution/creation debate is so hotly disputed in the American context, why so many otherwise intelligent people are in such complete disagreement about the scientific status of evolution and creation science. Ruse’s answer, in short, is that the debate reflects two fundamentally different reactions to a crisis of faith that started at least 150 years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. After reviewing the history of evolutionary theory against the backdrop of this larger crisis, Ruse draws several lessons he suggests may provide a way beyond the impasse that currently exists between advocates on the two sides… It is certainly true that greater insight into the reasons why some Christians feel threatened by evolutionary theory is a necessary step to any reconciliation between these two opposing camps, and Ruse’s treatment is particularly useful in clarifying why the issues have become so heated in the American context. For science educators, Ruse’s analysis is insightful and entertaining. It is one of a very few books that is accessible to an introductory student while nevertheless providing a sophisticated perspective of value to scholars in this area.”—David Rudge, Science Education
The bold lettering and underlining is mine. I think it's funny that we supposedly aren't as crazy as you all thought we were.Also, it was nice of David Rudge to say that it's intelligent people who are are in disagreement on both sides of the issue.
The point is, I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the amount of science they haven't been told about that contradicts evolution and lends support to creation.
If you take this statement at face value:
The point is, I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the amount of science they haven't been told about that contradicts evolution and lends support to creation.
and read into it the basic definition of evolution. Then the statement becomes non-sense because Orgle's experiments long ago proved beyond any question that bacteria evolve. Until Orgle's results are shown to be incorrect, evolution in bacteria is universally accepted science, and, by extension, evolution in organisms in general, and even in some non-organisms such as virus. Anyone that would deny this without a very strong scientific argument is no scientist.
The concept of evolution itself is now scientifically accepted as proven. It has the same gravity as the other scientific laws. However details with regard to mechanisms remain in flux. But that species evolve is no longer questioned by scientists.
There exists no science, currently accepted as correct, that "contradicts evolution." I suppose you meant, "contradicts some of the hypotheses about the mechanism for evolution."
Is this just my nit picking? I don't think so. It's statements such as yours, made innocently i'm sure, that get misinterpreted by religious nuts, that then go off on a tangent about how science contradicts evolution. It doesn't. The truth is just the opposite. Scientists today consider evolution as having been proven. And what make this science is that the proof is falsifiable. At some future date the proof could be shown to be incorrect. It hasn't been yet, however, and until that day, scientists will continue to accept that evolution has been proven.
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/orgel-leslie.pdf
Last edited:
Stu asked: "So why is it easier for you to accept something complex like the Universe needs a designer, but something which would have to be even more complex like a God, doesn't?"
I already answered your question:
This reply was written with the help of a scientist.
Concerning Orgel’s biographical memoirs, http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/orgel-leslie.pdf:
The author makes a significant statement in it,
Orgel never achieved, and to this day no one has achieved, the residue-by-residue copying of RNA in a sequence-general manner. Thus, his vision of “replicative doodling” has yet to be realized experimentally.
Residue-by-residue copying is the basis for what is called the “RNA World” in origin-of-life theory. It has been proposed because of necessity if a natural origin is true, even though the arguments against it are numerous and severe. However, the only alternative is for a simultaneous appearance of protein and RNA replication, which is so complex with interrelated RNA and protein interactions that the staunchest of evolutionists recognizes its implausibility.
Not a single major component of RNA replication can be successfully demonstrated. Even seemingly small steps of progress are overwhelmed by insurmountable problems. Prebiotic experiments reveal many plausibly fatal roadblocks and no demonstrable solutions—they are roadblocks. A person believes in a natural origin of life because he wants to despite the observed scientific evidence—not because of it.
There is a reason successful RNA replication of an RNA replicator template has not been achieved as the above article on Orgel mentioned. It takes over 200 nucleotides to build an RNA molecule capable of copying an RNA template accurately. Yet, RNA degrades so rapidly and the copying process is so slow that the copying molecule (replicator) falls apart before it can copy the template. Hence, if the template is for a replicator, it too will tend to degrade, falling apart before it can be copied. If this cannot be done in the lab under idealized, controlled conditions, the likelihood of it actually taking place in a natural, uncontrolled environment is virtually nil.
It does not do any good to have a single suitable replicator spontaneously appear. There also needs to be a template of its complement appear simultaneously. Furthermore, the replicator needs to be free and available to copy the template instead of being busy with another template and then needs to find the template and start copying it before either the replicator or the complement fall apart. Otherwise, all progress is lost.
In an environment offering many random attempts to form a suitable nucleotide sequence to produce a replicator, there will be many long strings which do not replicate. As the longer ones degrade, there becomes an overwhelming number of short ones in the solution. All of these are vying for the “attention” of the replicator when it becomes available to start working on a string.
There are many, many, many ways to randomly make long strings of nucleotides that do not work. After decades of intensive research, science still cannot make a replicator able to replicate a template of itself. There is no basis to expect in a solution with so many “parasites” that a second replicator would appear in a timely manner and close enough to be the one replicated.
Adding to this complexity is the problem of complementarity. RNA replicates the complement of its template. This requires two successful passes for a replicator to make a useful copy of itself. This is just not feasible from what scientific observation teaches us. A person believes it because he wants to, but not because of observed science teaching its feasibility under even the most favorable conditions.
Adding to this is the issue that scientists can start with the most ideal natural chemicals possible, work on them with the most ideal energy sources possible, in the most ideal environment possible, and still cannot get nucleotides to appear spontaneously without lots of human intervention. Nature is not so considerate. Science reveals all kinds of problems that would plausibly prevent nucleotides appearing in a form pure enough to use. Furthermore, until life itself appears, there are no feedback control mechanisms to keep the ratios between nucleotide species in anywhere near to being in usable ratios.
In fact, Orgel himself alluded to this problem. The article mentions, “He never hesitated to point out aspects of the prebiotic synthesis of RNA that remained unresolved, especially the difficulty in forming RNA without generating complex mixtures of related compounds that would interfere with RNA replication.” Yes, the prebiotic synthesis of RNA remains unsolved. However, the issue is not one of ignorance, that we haven’t figured out the problem. Instead, extensive investigation has revealed a long series of roadblocks which would naturally thwart its appearance. The problem is not the evidence. It is the unwillingness of Orgel and others to acknowledge the evidence.
These are just of a few of the problems discussed in the article by Dr. George Matzko, A Natural Origin-of-Life: Every Hypothetical Step Appears Thwarted by Aniogenetic Randomization, posted at https://www.osf.io/p5nw3, and alluded to earlier.
If science makes an overwhelming case against the possibility of a natural origin of life, then there would be nothing for evolution to work with.
So, a question: Can you or anyone falsify the problem of randomization, the foundational premise of the Matzko article? Scientific papers, such as the one by Matzko are never accepted for publication in the standard science journals. They are typically rejected without comment. This is expected. If the foundational premise is true, then materialism is without basis and the entire false focus of modern science is exposed. Modern science defines science as the best explanation consistent with a materialistic perspective. Hence, if any observations appear to challenge materialism they are rejected without comment. Yet, in its public presentation the assertion is constantly made that science affirms materialism. There is a twist here: science as defined by materialists is only allowed to confirm materialism and so it does. Unbiased science shows the error of this method, but these arguments are only ridiculed, then ignored by materialists. So, can you or anyone here falsify the underlying premise of Matzko’s article from an honest perspective based on true science? I.e., science as understood before Darwin and Huxley hijacked it into a tool to promote materialism? In other words, can you accept the evidence at face value and let it lead to where it naturally leads?
The historical attitude of the early scientists who founded the various fields (Boyle, Faraday, Gauss, etc.) was that a living God created the universe out of nothing, using His innate power as God. He established an order in His creation which allows an orderly operation and progression of events. However, He can intervene and override any aspect of the creation at His will—in any manner and at any time. And He does this. Obviously, science is by definition the study of this natural order. The creation cannot determine what the God who created it will choose to do next, so science does not have the tools to predict His behavior. However, such a God can reveal Himself through the creation, doing so in a manner that HE chooses for His purposes.
One way of revealing Himself is represented by Matzko’s article: the study of the creation reveals a fundamental principle of natural law—randomization—that works against a natural origin of life at every step. This is one aspect of how He reveals Himself to man. In this case, the task of the atheist is to invalidate the fundamental principle dealing with the issues honestly. It would actually take only one insurmountable step to render the appearance of life impossible. Yet, it appears that randomization proves fatal to every step examined.
Moreover, randomization is actually the underlying root for what is called entropy. The discussion is too deep for here, but just be aware that there are no observed instances where entropy is violated. Hence, a person really first needs to invalidate the root principle underlying entropy in order to make a case that natural processes are adequate to create life.
Concerning “Orgel’s rules.” These are only generalized statements. They have not been rigorously analyzed or defined, which is what is needed for true scientific value. For instance, he talks about how a certain protein evolved into a form which allows it to meet a special need. Scientific analysis would quantify what the starting protein sequence was and the changes needed to convert it into a new form meeting a new need. Common sense suggests that if minor changes are adequate and the opportunities for them to appear are great enough, they will probably appear. However, the greater the divergence between the two proteins, the more unlikely it is for the change to appear. True science is quantifying an issue like this and determining its validity. Fake science latches onto anything that supports its agenda and trumpets it as long and as loudly as it can get away with.
In other words, there are limits. Undefined statements such as Orgel’s Rules made without any attempt to define limits or made in an effort to gloss over limits because of an agenda are meaningless at best. For instance, hemoglobin is a protein. So is an antibody. Both are completely different in structure and purposes. Can one imagine a reasonable path where an organism needing a particular antibody could modify hemoglobin to provide it? Orgel’s rules appear to have very limited applicability. There is no basis to suggest they are adequate to account for the changes necessary to transform any known taxonomic class into a different known one. The changes needed are too great in character and quantity to assert that Orgel’s Rules are adequate to account for all of the simultaneous changes needed. Any claims to the contrary are only speculations presented as fact.
Last edited:
I think you have misunderstood. Orgel did not demonstrate spontaneous biogenesis; he demonstrated evolution unequivocally using a bacteriophage. The problem of biogenesis remains unsolved. My guess is that work in the laboratory will prove useful in solving the problem of biogenesis in the universe, but is unlikely to actually solve the problem directly for purely practical reasons having to do with the relationship of human lifetimes to geological time. This is a problem that, I am inclined to believe, can only be solved mathematically; thus only indirectly demonstrated.
"If science makes an overwhelming case against the possibility of a natural origin of life, then there would be nothing for evolution to work with."
Again, at present all scientists, with insignificant exceptions, accept that organisms evolve. And, as I mentioned, orgel proved evolution in bacteriophage. (Virus are not organisms.) Current questions center around the origin of separate species, and, as I mentioned, one hypothesis is that separate species had either independent genesis and/or early branching in their evolution occurred.
You should be careful to distinguish between "unproven" and "disproven." Two very different things. Because the spontaneous biogenesis of life forms is unproven, and there exists numerous objections on scientific grounds to some current biogenesis hypotheses, does not mean that spontaneous biogenesis has been "disproven." It may mean, however, that some current hypotheses are quite likely incorrect. An hypothesis is just an educated guess. Once anyone comes up with scientifically sound arguments on why an hypothesis is probably wrong, the hypothesis will generally speaking be abandoned for other more promising hypotheses. On the other hand once an hypothesis has been "disproven," one is left with no choice; it must be abandoned.
Last edited:
Evolution on demand.
"...
which he put to good use supporting afternoon tea and
occasional parties for members of his laboratory."
-gotta like that
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/orgel-leslie.pdf:
studentofthemarkets, #26
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...nist-answers-given.348298/page-3#post-5187221
- Status