Many evolutionary supporters claim that anyone who doubts evolution as a theory of origins is really daft or religiously driven. One defense they often resort to is the claim that “the majority of professional scientists believe in evolution – you think they are all wrong?”
The creationists answer to this question is a resounding “YES!” – but how could so many intelligent people be wrong about a scientific concept? I suspect it is not a conspiracy, but a DELUSION. And I believe that I can explain why this delusion is so appealing to scientists.
1. Many scientists have never studied biology and don’t understand evolutionary claims
Because evolution is a process that only living things undergo, scientists with degrees in sciences OTHER than biology have only tangential knowledge of evolution and biological processes. They must depend on their colleagues to really ferret out the truths. Now, they may understand supporting data in palaeontology (arguably a life science), geology, astronomy, and chemistry, but again, these are not central.
Even more, evolutionary assumptions are not essential to or even a part of most scientific research, so many never have to prove or disprove the claims of evolution in their everyday work. My point is, many scientists just take the biologists’ word for it, and have not examined the data or thought through the implications and claims of evolutionary biology themselves – i.e., they are involved in group think.
2. Evolutionary convictions are often based on educational indoctrination, not independent thought
Many people, scientists included, have little idea how much debate exists over the validity of evolution, its mechanisms, and the data that is missing, hard to interpret, or fits various interpretations. Most of us are schooled from elementary school through college in the idea that there is overwhelming data supporting evolution, and we don’t question it. Even worse, any data that conflicts with evolution is kept OUT of our schools by zealots who think that any questioning of evolutionary doctrine amounts to religion (heresy)!
It is common for scientists who become evolutionary doubters (or creationists) to react like this author:
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s…..I was once debating evolution with a friend, and I was spouting all the platitudes I had been taught. He said, ‘Look, rather than debating me, why don’t you read a book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton’? I assumed that it would be some nonsensical religious hogwash, but I was in for a big surprise.
I devoured the book in a couple of days, and when I was finished I slapped myself on the forehead and thought, “I’ve been conned all my life!”
In fact, anyone who awakes from brainwashing, like those in Communist or Muslim countries, or even from heavy-handed Christian churches, reacts similarly. When you are taught what to think instead of how, and what you are being taught does not line up with your experience, your cognitive dissonance starts to wake you up.
My point is that, when it comes to evolutionary biology, most scientists have been indoctrinated, not taught how to evaluate and question the data seriously.
3. Theories of origins are deeply embedded as a foundation of a person’s world view
We all have a worldview. A worldview may be defined as
- The view of the world relative to an ego. The ego uses a worldview to explain and assimilate experience (schuelers)
- an integrated system of beliefs and concepts about the universe (natural and/or supernatural), society and the self (wayne.edu)
- A world view, (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung meaning “look onto the world”. It implies a concept fundamental to german philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. It refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it (wikipedia)
The components of a world view, through which we make sense of the world, include what George Fowler, in his excellent but poorly named book Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian (for all fans of Erik Erikson), calls a master story. This story is the one through which we explain origins, and the beginning, direction and meaning of history.
Evolution gives an answer to these questions, and so when you undermine evolution, you are undermining many people’s worldview, even if, as is often the case, they are unaware that this is their worldview. So when you attack evolution, you are undermining the model that they use to make meaning, and this can be very disconcerting.
Look at it this way. Many Christians believe in the creationist world view, and it is intricately intertwined with their faith in God. When you attack creationism, they also experience it as attacking their faith, THEIR worldview. Like it or not, evolution is more than just a scientific theory – many people rely on it as part of their worldview, and so are very reluctant to seriously question it, just like many people of faith are unwilling to question why they believe – because it forms a foundation to their sanity, their view of order and mankind in the world and in history, and tugging at it scares them.
My point is that evolutionists often depend on evolution as a core component of their world view, and for emotional rather than intellectual reasons, can not bring themselves to upset their worldview because it is too frightening and disorienting.
4. Evolution is the only naturalistic explanation for origins
Science must depend on empirical and historic data in order to be verifiable. Therefore, if you want a non-faith-related, naturalistic model for origins, you pretty much don’t have another choice besides evolution. Scientists don’t want superstitious or non-verifiable solutions – that is not science. So, by default they choose the evolutionary model until a better one comes along.
However, evolution is not entirely naturalistic, in that it can not explain first causes. For instance, we might assume that the universe was created from a dense singularity that exploded. But where did that singularity come from? And how can we “prove” that it existed?
At some starting point, you are going to have to make some assumptions about the prime mover, and what that prime mover provided as source material.  So whether you assume God, or a singularity, you are making an unverifiable assumption. However, that is OK, as long as you can support this contention by supporting all that happened AFTER that point using data.
But why is evolution the only naturalistic solution? The main reason is that, as naturalist materialists, we have to assume that in the beginning, all matter and energy were unorganized – because initial organization requires a creative intelligence, which materialistic science has rejected a priori. And while assuming a creative intelligence could be a valid assumption, it is no longer purely naturalistic, and therefore, eliminated.
Also, empirical science depends on the world working by the natural laws we can currently observe. Therefore, the materialist position requires that we start with disorganization and proceed to organization with entirely natural processes.
So, what other naturalistic model explains the current complexity and similarity of life, arrived at by natural processes, starting with chaos? None other than common descent, i.e. evolution. My point is, scientists have no other valid, naturalistic explanation, so evolution wins by default.
5. Many believe that to doubt evolution means you must become religious
This belief similar to the point above, is somewhat founded in truth – because, once you abandon your evolutionary world view of origins, you have to go somewhere in order to get this foundational element to your world view restored, or risk having instability in your world view, which no one enjoys. As previously discussed, since their is no other naturalistic explanation, you’ll have to look at supernatural explanations. This is exactly why noted atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying
“Before Darwinism, it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
That is, before Darwinism, atheists did not have a theory of origins – their world view was missing a major element.
The one interesting naturalistic alternative to evolution is the theory of directed panspermia, proposed by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Why would he propose this alternative to evolution? Because in his mind, there were some critical scientific facts that contradicted evolution, including
- the puzzling dependence of biological systems on molybdenum (which is rare on earth)
- the uniformity of the genetic code across all of life
- the miracle of life itself, and the appearance of design
Or in Crick’s words from Life Itself
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
My point is that in order to abandon evolution as an explanation of origins, you pretty much have no place to go except maybe alien creators or the creator God.
6. Many scientists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between their philosophy of science and their science, and between historical and empirical data
Science rests upon some suppositions, including but not limited to the following principles:
- Determinism – all events in the universe is caused and controlled by natural law and are the inevitable result of antecedent conditions
- Empiricism – all theory and knowledge should be based on observation. This is in contrast to ‘rationalism’, which proposes that reasoning is the basis
So while all scientists would agree that science employs empirical observation and analysis, science involves more than observation. It includes
- empirical, experimental evidence (empiricism)
- analysis of historical, non-experimental evidence, like fossils
- primary assumptions about natural processes (assumptions behind determinism)
Note that point two above requires a world view, and primary assumptions about natural processes that may be incorrect. This is where evolutionists often fail – they fail to distinguish between what they can observe (natural selection), what they must interpret based on indirect, historical evidence (fossils), and their assumptions about such processes, such as particle decay (e.g. radio dating).
When an evolutionist claims “natural selection happens,” they can back that up with empirical evidence, so we can not argue with that. But when they say “homo erectus was related to homo sapiens” they are interpreting historical data, which can be very wrong because you can’t verify that with an empirical experiment.
Even worse, they claim their conclusions based on fossils (or DNA) as true and authoritative as, for instance, the experimental observations of gravity, but these conclusions are NOT of equal validity because the former are not experimentally verifiable. They are interpretations.
Note that I did not say that they are invalid or incorrect – they are just not as verifiable, and more open to mistakes in interpretation. We would have to evaluate the trustworthiness of the assumptions behind their conclusions to evaluate whether or not their interpretations seem trustworthy. This is a whole separate endeavor, and much more debatable than a repeatable experiment. And, as we must do with all theories based primarily on historic data (creationism included), we would have to rely on how well their model incorporates current data and predicts future discoveries.
So, when a creationist says “I doubt macroevolution happens,” many scientists hear “I doubt natural selection happens” – that is, since they hold both as equally true (they may be, but they are not equally verfiable), they think that to reject macroevolution is to reject other validated natural processes. This, of course, is not a correct conclusion.
My point is that many scientists confuse rejection of unverifiable assumptions or conclusions based on interpretation of historic data with rejection of empirically proven processes or facts. They fail to separate their assumptions from their interpretations from their empirical facts.
7. Many scientists have an entire lifetime of work and ego investment in evolution
What if your whole scientific career was built on evolutionary thinking, and suddenly someone challenges you, suggesting that your efforts may have been wasted on a bogus theory? When we question evolution, we are threatening many individuals’ sense of self, since they have a lot of ego or work invested in evolution. Same goes for Creationists – when you try to discredit them, they may feel it as a threat to their long dedication to that world view.
My point is that many scientists are unwilling to consider that evolution is untrue because they have invested too much of their time, effort, and egos in evolution being true. They can’t consider that their efforts may have been wasted .
8. Many scientists are not independent thinkers, and fear rejection and reprisals
Contrary to what you might think, many scientists are not independent mavericks. Like most of us, they don’t like conflict, they avoid rejection and looking foolish, and they don’t want to endanger their jobs. And because of the evolutionary hegemony and authoritarian manner in which dissenters are mocked and punished, many scientists probably don’t think it is even worth considering questioning evolution, especially since it is immaterial, if not detrimental, to the work of most science.
My point is that most scientists have no academic or research need to utilize or examine evolution because it is immaterial to their pursuits, and to question evolution would put their academic reputations, and even their jobs, at risk due to the evolutionary hegemony and orthodoxy practiced in the scientific community.
9. Many scientists fail to evaluate the difference between a theory in flux and one that is actually false
When should we abandon a theory or model? When it no longer “works,” or when another model comes along that is remarkably better at incorporation and prediction.  What does it mean for a model to “not work”? When, in the course of trying to incorporate known data, there are more exceptions than rules, more data that does not fit than is reasonable.
Evolutionary believers often defend the multitude of adjustments in evolutionary theory, especially phylo-genetic trees, by appealing to the fact that the theory is growing and refining in response to more data. However, what they fail to recognize is that these trees and other theories, in general, are not getting better at incorporating existing data, but rather, are sometimes getting more jumbled and nonsensical, and are filled with dotted lines indicating we have no evidence of relatedness, only suppositions.
These may not look significant to the untrained eye, and I apologize, it’s not the best illustration, but what this is intended to show is that as more data has come in, the tree has changed pretty dramatically, and more question marks have been introduced. This doesn’t even take into account the recent finds, plus the demotion of lucy to simian.
Also, see this somewhat recent illustration from Science1 magazine with the many possible human trees suggested by scientists. The fact that there are many possible variations does not mean that human evolution isn’t so. What it does mean is that (1) there are lots of questions, missing data, and assumptions, and (2) there may be enough confusion to warrant discarding the idea altogether.
This not to say that creationists are against such trees, but they only believe that inheritance from a common ancestor occurred with created kinds (Baraminology), such as shown below (Answers in Genesis).
My point is that most scientists seem unwilling to consider how many exceptions, contradictions of evolution by the data, and just the plain lack of predictive value in the evolutionary model are enough to consider that it might not be true. Maybe these conversations are happening, but I haven’t seen them.
10. The fallen nature of man wants to deny God, and is blinded both by it’s own sinfulness and the spiritually dark forces of this world
This is my only “religious” reason for why evolutionists are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the delusion of evolutionary origins. Because deep down, by fallen nature, none of us really want to surrender our lives to the God who made us. He is holy, and we are not. He calls for selflessness and we want to stay selfish. This is why Paul the Apostle wrote:
Romans 3:10-12
As it is written
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands; no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.”
Also, Paul intones that unbelief flourishes in the souls of some men because they are blinded by the “god of this world” (Satan).
2 Corinthians 4:3-5
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
This includes being brainwashed by vain and untrue philosophies
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.2 Corinthians 10:4-5
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ
The fact is, evolution IS a barrier to faith for many people, because they believe that evolution proves that the bible is false. Of course, there are many who think the bible and evolution compatible, but for others, losing faith in evolution opens the door to faith in the God of the bible.
My point is that many scientists hold onto evolution because they resist any truths that might lead them to the conclusion that the biblical God, or even any God, might exist. They do this because they, like all of us, are fallen, and because there are larger powers of delusion at work on their minds – empty, false philosophies and theories masquerading as truth, and demonic influences keeping people hostage to their views.
FOOTNOTES
1 Wood & Collard, Science, Vol 284, 2 April 1999, ‘The Human Genus’ page 67
All of these overwhelming arguments againt evolution go double for Creationism Seeker. All of them. So we should fall back on what we objectively know, and what we objectively know are facts. Facts that seem to support evolution, and not the Bible.
True! LOL. But these aren't really arguments against evolution, just arguments about why the majority of scientists might be deluded into believing it. More of a study in human nature and social conditioning than an exploration of the facts around evolution.
I worked hard on this essay, took me a few hours.
It is a good essay.
I like the use of the repeated use of the term "many scientists." This is vague enough to cover seeker's ignorance of how the vast majority of scientists think and reason. The essay is also a fine example of projection.
btw: Point ten is entirely irrelevant to science and, in fact, is quite revealing about the religionist viewpoint. Quotes from the bible are irrelevant. But, of course, that's the point.
seeker's argument about evolution boils down to finding gaps in its explanation of phenomena, claiming they disprove evolutionary theory and, therefore, creationism must be true. This, of course, ignores the continuing project by science to explain those very gaps in terms of evolutionary theory.
ID ignores the fact that its theories don't require the god of christianity. Intelligent aliens could also be the source of life on earth. Or, perhaps, Dagon or Baal or Zeus or some deity we've never heard of. Why not? They never provide proof that there is a god, or that it must be the xian god behind things. You quote the bible but provide no evidence for its validity beyond faith (ie, belief without evidence). Looking at the world, this "intelligent" designer seems rather dumb to me, or cruel, or incompetent.
Point ten is entirely irrelevant to science and, in fact, is quite revealing about the religionist viewpoint. Quotes from the bible are irrelevant. But, of course, that's the point.
Irrelevant to you, but not to the discussion. I am giving possible reasons for why so many scientists (the majority, as evolutionists are fond of saying) believe in evolution when I think it is patently false.
I mean, sure, they might believe in it because it is actually true, but assuming it is not, I am explaining what I think the reason is that so many might believe something to be false.
And this article says nothing about the data that falsifies or contradicts evolution. Nor do I say that evolution's failure to explain everything means it is false. What it does mean is that evolution is not a fact, nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt, except to unscientific believers. I never say I prove creationism, only that there is as much or more data to support those contentions. In the argument over origins, there is no definitive "proof."
ID ignores the fact that its theories don't require the god of christianity. Intelligent aliens could also be the source of life on earth.
Very true. Creationists know this, and so do IDists.
Dagon or Baal or Zeus or some deity we've never heard of. Why not?
Because the God of the Bible has interrupted history with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Also, because the teachings of Jesus are superior to those of Dagaon or Baal or Zeus. Because not all 'gods' are equal, even in a mere intellectual comparison. Claiming that all supernatural claims are of equal value (or no value) is simple for the rationalist, but they are anti-intellectual and really only dumb down the conversation.
You quote the bible but provide no evidence for its validity beyond faith (ie, belief without evidence).
(1) It is a perfectly reasonable method to hold out truth for it's own sake, without giving any justification, trusting people to recognize it as true.
(2) Christianity does not offer belief without evidence. This type of blind faith is part of, again, the anti-intellectual broad-brushing of the anti-faith community, who strike up a straw man or worst case abuse of faith, and paint all faith as synonymous, as I discussed in The Atheist's Caricature of Faith. Faith certainly involves trust and belief without having incontrovertible proof, but it does not mean that there is no proof, nor does it mean that you check reason at the door. Some churches and people may practice faith like that, but that is neither biblical nor healthy.
Looking at the world, this "intelligent" designer seems rather dumb to me, or cruel, or incompetent.
Looking at the cruelty of life, I agree. However, as important as answering the question of "does this make sense to me, or does it please me?" (which are important), we must also ask "is this true?"
It could be that the bible is true, even if we are not pleased with its reality.
First, seeker: It looked like you worked hard on this essay. At the very least it was well organized and easy to follow. Well done.
Second, I'll comment on this:
seeker's argument about evolution boils down to finding gaps in its explanation of phenomena, claiming they disprove evolutionary theory and, therefore, creationism must be true. This, of course, ignores the continuing project by science to explain those very gaps in terms of evolutionary theory.
This commnent shows a commitment to evolution being nonfalsifiable. Any gaps are only "We'll need more research". I think the 'gaps' are quite large.
The point of seeker's good essay was that people tend to approach these kinds of arguments emotionally (for various reasons), rather than rationally. That is, they'll reason based on emotion. That it goes both ways doesn't address the issue.
That it goes both ways doesn't address the issue.
It does, however, raise the issue for creationists which I have raised for evolutionists – are we being honest with ourselves? Is our commitment to creationism primarily faith or fact based? If creationism turns out to be untrue, would that affect our faith? If so, what does that mean about our approach, our integrity, and intellectual honesty when approaching the subject?
But you are correct, and I am addressing the problem of group think and lack of skepticism among scientists who have been duped into believing that evolution is fact, and evolutionary origins is a science rather than a philosophy of science and an assumption behind their science.
It is about time that someone stood up to the deluded scientists who have faith in evolution. Christians are under attack from Godless atheist scientists. In response, I found a video called The Atheist Delusion that shows another view. It shows the Christian side of the argument and it makes atheists look stupid. We have the truth on our side and all they have are theories. If you want more information, check out uncommon descent.
Ha-ha. whenever anything is asserted or proved or discussed which doesn't conform to xian dogma, xians bleat that they're being "attacked" or "discriminated against." What a joke! Especially when it's the xians who are the prime persecutors is our culture.
It's also a joke that xians think they are offending scientists or other with the term "Godless atheist," they are either deluded or demented.
I, once again, ask for proof of your god's existence.
Scripture is the only evidence Christians need to believe things. The u tube movie even says so. Everything the Bible says is true. That means scientists are wrong. End of discussion. What don't you understand? Have you ever seen an airplane or a bird? They defy the theory of gravity. So even evolution can be wrong even though science says its true just like gravity.
You accuse Christians of being persecutors. Thats is a lie. It is the godless atheists who persecute people. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before the firing squad, etc etc etc.
You want proof of God's existence? Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Seriously, Neo-Con.
You have shown yourself to be close-minded ("End of discussion"), hateful ("all Atheists would be burnt at the stake"), and immature (paraphrase: "My daddy says so… so pthhhh").
you do not display the love, or reason, a Christian should show; or you are funny atheist being satirical.
Grow up. You won't win anybody over using your current 'style' of dialog. By the way, your mission isn't wanting atheists burnt, it should be wanting everyone to meet God's love.
Neo-con, I have to agree with think – you are being too dogmatic and not really using reason. I do understand what you mean by claiming the bible is true, but you have to do more.
And there is another option – if scripture and science disagree, it could be that the science is wrong, or it could be that our interpretation of scripture is incorrect.
I think he's being satirical.
Oh, you mean like pulling a Colbert, mimicking what he hears. I see. Well, not sure what good it did. Real satire plays at the faults of opponents – his just played up a weird caricature.
He's so over the top, portraying xians as nutjobs, that I can't believe he's being real.
THINK: What if there is no God? Well, whoopdedoo, millions of people have been fooled, evos win, we all die. BUT! If there is a God, then what's the hurt in Christians believing in Him? Why do evos try to get us to all believe what they believe, instead of actually showing some tolerance? This is America, people, not Nazi Germany. We don't have to believe in evolution, and you can quit trying to ridicule everything we believe or say.
The problem with athiestic evolution is that it tends to claims thiestic evolution as its last defense. If true naturalistic evolutionists told thiestic evolutionists what they really thought of them, there would be no holding back the destruction of their strangle hold on academia.
Marissa = Lawanda?
Jesus performed miracles right in front of people and they didn't believe. I don't know that any amount of reason or evidence will convince someone who doesn't even desire to consider the possibility that something bigger than them created all life. Atheist will still get in our faces and scream at us about being stupid and judgemental. I pity them. They are missing out on so much beauty and wonder by putting origins in their safe little box. Our small little human minds will never fully understand the magnitude or impact of life itself. But God in with his grace and mercy have given us the desire to try.
No, I am still me, thank you.
Evolutionists are bluffing when they claim evolution is science.
See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/
Welcome to the far side of the moon.
I know, that site seems a bit fringe – even if I agree with their conclusions, they don't do a great job of supporting them.
faith and knowledge.
macaroni and cheese. what they heck, "simple"?
Can anyone out there (Louis?) with the necessary language skills in Hebrew and Greek, find any mistakes in the Bible? I would be open to any areas of discussion: History, geography, science, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, law and society, human nature, prophecy, psychology, etc. You are putting man and his absolutely dismal history of failed theories in every area of life up against the incredible God of the Bible who knows all because He made all. Louis, you are betting your life on a losing (dead) horse.
Can anyone out there (Louis?) with the necessary language skills in Hebrew and Greek, find any mistakes in the Bible? I would be open to any areas of discussion: History, geography, science, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, law and society, human nature, prophecy, psychology, etc. You are putting man and his absolutely dismal history of failed theories in every area of life up against the incredible God of the Bible who knows all because He made all. Louis, you are betting your life on a losing (dead) horse.
I guess that depends on how you define mistakes. Copying mistakes in the extant copies? Some, just talk to Bart Ehrman.
Disagreements with science? Only if you look to be literal where it is phenomenological, or if you discount miracles, or if you think we evolved and that the Genesis account of creation conflicts with evolution.
They may rely on some classic "bible difficulties," or dual accounts of similar or the same events, which have explanations and harmonizations written for them, respectively.
One other way you could call things in the bible mistakes, and that is moral or ethical actions of God or his followers that conflict with modern ethics. The Israelites may have been "told by God" to commit genocide of the Canaanites, including executing their children.
OT scripture seems to support slavery, and not just debtors or indentured servitude, but ownership of those from conquered lands.
Also, one might argue that OT penalties for misdeeds are unjustly harsh, like the death penalty for disobedient children, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, sex during a woman's period.
There unbeliever guys, I did some of your work for you. Not that I agree with you, but I like summarizing ;)
I find that there is an underlying lack of science knowledge and understanding in the general public. When we have a good grasp on how the natural world actually functions and opperates, a few things become clear. First of all, both "models" – scientific creationism and naturalistic evolution – depend an a certain element of faith (believing that which we can not directly observe, repeat or measure). So what we then need to look at is which one is best supported by, or rejected by, our observations of the natural world today (this is where the science education comes in).
Scientific creationism contends that an always-existing, all-powerful God once created a mature world that was perfect. However, due to man's sin against Him, punishment had to be created, and that included a world-wide flood that significantly changed the face of the earth. Naturalistic evolution contends that at some point in the past, something happened (a Big Bang or the Cloud-Nebula theory) to start all that we know today. The particles of 'space matter' becane to come together in groupings that became planets, and the favorable conditions on earth allow for just the right condtions to exist that life could start and begin/continue to evolve.
Some of the problems with the core foundation of this theory of evolution is that there are too many aspects of nature that are interdependant; that is, they both had to be up and working completely, simultaneously for any of it to work — according to what we observe (for example, the relationship between proteins and DNA- you can't have one without the other; and the two phases of photosynthesis). Also, we observe that mutations are almost always harmful, certainly not benefitial as evolutionists would claim.
There aren't really any other credible theories outside of either evolution or creationism, and with all the foundational problems in evolution, and with the many ways in which what were observe is predicted by creationism, the Bible asside, creationism is the only acceptable option for the 'scientifically-educated'.
– Sincerely, Keith Knapp
HS Science Teacher
Jim Kraft,
You said "Can anyone out there (Louis?) with the necessary language skills in Hebrew and Greek, find any mistakes in the Bible?"
Seeker has raised some good points.
(Hey, it had to happen sooner or later! JOKE!!)
But seriously.
What about the prophesy of Tyre?
(Hint, Tyre is still around)
Or that thing about the cure for leprosy?
(That to me seems like a big boo-boo.)
Not saying that it invalidates God or the Bible.
(I figure I'd better get that in before somebody puts words in my mouth)
Keith Knapp said
"Also, we observe that mutations are almost always harmful, certainly not benefitial as evolutionists would claim."
You Sir are mistaken.
Mutations are not almost always harmful.
Ask a geneticist! Please. Or just check out a genetics web-site. It will take you only a minute.
(Sheesh)
Evolutionists (Wha..? I presume you mean biologists) do not claim that mutations are almost always beneficial. If they did, they would have their butts handed to them on a plate by geneticists.
Let me give you a clue.
The word mutation (biologically speaking) does not mean a tragically deformed baby. As a science teacher (??) I'm sure you know that. The image is wrong.
Let me give you a second clue.
Mutations can be harmful? That's one possibility.
Mutations can be beneficial? That's the second possiblity.
Mutations can be……? What's the third possibility?
Now go and do your homework and stop spreading canards!
Mutations are not almost always harmful.
Ask a geneticist! Please. Or just check out a genetics web-site. It will take you only a minute.
(Sheesh)
I have a degree in biochemistry and did many years of genetic research. Perhaps you would like to find those "many" beneficial mutations. But let me save you some time – sickle cell anemia and nylase have been discounted.
Mutations can be……? What's the third possibility?
So what phrase do you think will make your readers smart enough for you, eh? If you have the answers, YOU do the homework. But here's my answer to your, um, challenge.
Mutations can be corrected by the self-correcting mechanisms that magically evolved (NOT). OR, mutations can be benign.
But beneficial, heritable mutations? Almost never. Certainly not enough to have created the complexity and diversity we have now. Only a person with great faith could believe such a fantastic story.
(i) There are enough examples of beneficial mutations that creationists now generally seem to acknowledge their existence, and turn to other lines of argument. The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has declared this an argument that “should definitely not be used.” They advise using the argument that mutations cannot increase genetic information instead. However, there are still some holdouts, and this claim still seems to enjoy wide currency among the creationist masses, so it is worth detailing a few.
(i) Here are a few examples of beneficial mutations:
* The acquisition by Flavobacterium of the ability to hydrolyze certain industrial waste products:
Since the mutation documented by Ohno allows the microorganisms in question to consume short nylon oligomers as a primary food source, it certainly qualifies as a beneficial mutation. It is interesting to note that the acquisition of this new metabolic activity has been duplicated in the laboratory (although it is not clear whether it involved the same kinds of microorganisms, the same frame-shift mutation, or the same enzyme). Richard Harter reports:
The creationist organization Answers in Genesis disputes the validity of the mutation cited by Bakken, but as near as I can tell, their objections have been adequately answered by Ian Musgrave. I am in the process of reviewing the primary literature to make sure, but in the meantime, readers who would like to judge for themselves (and that should be all of you) can access the AiG article here, and Musgrave’s response here.
* Researchers working with the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans have identified “four genes, that, when mutated, can make these worms use energy more efficiently, feed and swim at a slower pace — and live many times their normal life-span. Some of the experimental nematodes lived for almost 2 months, far longer than their expected 9 days” (Pennisi 1996:949; see also Lakowski 1996:1010-1013).
* A mutation increasing AIDS resistance in humans:
These are just a few examples which I found in a cursory search. Others are not difficult to find in the scientific literature.
(iii) Even some of the most seemingly deleterious mutations can have great adaptive value in certain environments. For instance, mutations that cause stunted wing growth in Drosophila increase the fly’s ability to survive on islands where high winds are present (Ruse 1982:92). This helps to explain why decades of irradiating Drosophila in the laboratory produced only less fit mutants: in a population’s normal environment, virtually all mutations must be neutral or deleterious, because the population is already extremely well adapted to its environment (Moore 1983:11-13). But the same mutations that are deleterious in the normal environment may become beneficial on the geographical fringes of a population, or in the event of environmental change throughout the entire geographical range of the population (a hurricane might wipe out all of the winged Drosophila on an island). It also offers a partial explanation for why evolution should be expected to proceed in a punctuated manner on the geological time scale.
(iv) Even certain classes of macromutations can be neutral or beneficial. Richard Dawkins presents an example with snake vertebrae:
(v) This is a good place to talk about the sickle-cell mutation. This mutation seems to be a stock in textbooks, probably because it is an example not only of beneficial mutation, but of heterozygote fitness. Creationists have routinely panned this example, arguing that a mutation that impairs the function of hemoglobin can hardly be called a beneficial mutation. For instance, creationist David A. Demick writes
The problem with Demick’s not wanting to count the sickle cell mutation as a beneficial mutation is actually highlighted in the last sentence of the quoted text: “its incidence is enhanced in malaria endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection.” Let me repeat with added emphasis: “its incidence is enhanced in malaria endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection.” How can Demick say this and yet seem to contend that it is not a beneficial mutation? Here is something that many people do not understand about mutations: the same mutation can be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another. There may well be no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial in every environment. The diversity of life is generally driven by differences in environment within a species, leading to selection for different mutations, and ultimately driving the varieties that occupy the different environments into different species.
I said: “Mutations are not almost always harmful.”
And a little later I said “Evolutionists (Wha..? I presume you mean biologists) DO NOT CLAIM that mutations are almost always beneficial.”
Given these two statements Seeker, how do you leap to
“Perhaps you would like to find those “many” beneficial mutations.”?
Does anybody else see the different words here?
Stop shifting the goal-posts Seeker.
Neat trick, but it’s beneath you.
You said “I have a degree in biochemistry and did many years of genetic research.”
Terrific, but let’s pretend that you are lying to me.
(Purely for the sake of argument, of course!) :)
Let’s assume that I prefer to check out a genetics web-site from say, a major university that has an impeccable scientific pedigree and has lots of real-deal scientists working at it?
Can you find an appropriate web-site?
So I claim that there are three different kinds of mutations. Three(3).
One kind is harmful.
One kind is beneficial.
And the other kind is……?
(Extra hint, it ain’t a phrase, it’s a single word)
And of these three the most common type is…….?
Knapp, the science teacher (grimace), is the one saying “we observe that mutations are almost always harmful, certainly not benefitial as evolutionists would claim”.
I say this is garbage. Ignorant swill.
I say that Evolutionists (educated people might be tempted to call them biologists) DO NOT CLAIM that almost all mutations are harmful.
I say that biologists ALSO DO NOT claim that most mutations are beneficial.
People, there’s only one option left, yeah?
Care to open that web-site now and look how geneticists choose to phrase it? Hmmm?
Stop shifting the goal-posts Seeker. Neat trick, but it's beneath you.
You are right, I misunderstood. So, what I am saying is that the few, if ANY beneficial, heritable changes do not make for evolution.
So, at least you are admitting one thing – that beneficial heritable mutations are rare. That, in my mind, makes the success of evolution equally unlikely.
In fact, this whole discussion seems to be about whether or not evolution can produce novel, functional proteins via mutation. It seems to me that evolutionists depend on this occurrence in order for their theory to work. But not only is this rare, as you have admitted, many creationists argue that it NEVER happens. Of course, you could define "never" as less than one in ten to the 60th, or whatever.
So, without making me troll around the often incomplete and superficial postings at talk.origins or the Panders Thumb, would you like to attempt to answer these two questions, which if unanswered, cast serious doubt on evolution?
1. Please describe some known mutations that are examples of creating novel functional proteins (note: nylase doesn't count, since it's a duplication)
2. Please explain the mechanism by which evolution creates these.
I mean, you could say that they happen by chance, somehow get into the germ line, and are selected for. But the fact is, we just don't see that in nature. Anywhere.
And just in case you are tempted, these situations do not count as evolution:
– speciation due to physical separation (this is just differential gene expression)
– adaptation (again, just expression of information already present)
– natural selection (again, no new information created)
– deletion (this may cause changes, but lessening function is not creating new information)
Anyway, I do not expect this discussion to go any further than it has, because most evolutionists are comitted to it, not because of the overwhelming data, but despite the gaps, due to the reasons sited above. Mass delusion. Really, I'm not being pejorative. As a former "beleiver" myself, I am now outside of the cult.
Seeker said "You are right, I misunderstood."
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." – Mark Twain
Seeker, I don't know what I am more! Gratified or astonished?
Seeker, you said “…beneficial, heritable mutations are rare. That, in my mind, makes the success of evolution equally unlikely”
Unlikely? I don’t know what you mean by this.
Then you said
“In fact, this whole discussion seems to be about whether or not evolution can produce novel, functional proteins via mutation. It seems to me that evolutionists depend on this occurrence in order for their theory to work. But not only is this rare, as you have admitted, many creationists argue that it NEVER happens.”
Creationists argue many things, often with each other. Let’s leave them to wonder about how many ‘kinds’ of dinosaur were on the Ark and whether the Earth is 6000 years old or perhaps only 5500 years old (giggle).
But I digress…
So, you don’t seem to be using the ‘never’ word, just the ‘unlikely’ word.
Hmmm….
Are you saying that The Theory of Evolution is ….possible?
I thought you believed that it’s utterly impossible?
Not a really chance but absolute zero?
(Not trying to put words in your mouth but could you confirm or correct please?)
You later say “Of course, you could define “never” as less than one in ten to the 60th, or whatever.”
Ahah! (…I think…)
So, you are referring to the “A tornado blowing through a junkyard couldn’t assemble a 747 airliner argument?”
Please tell me you are not.
We can't know for sure, so how could I say never? I'd say it is extremely unlikely, and that creationism's claims have merit. Those who claim evolution is as "sure as gravity" are blowing smoke, and their ideas of what make up evidence are warped by their need to believe evolution. That's all.
Could things have evolved? Sure. Did they? I find it scientifically doubtful. But to doubt is heresy to the believers who confuse historical data with empirical evidence, and make vast claims based on spotty evidence.
Nice Cedric, when you reduce Seeker to hollow assertions and rhetoric like that, it's a sure sign you're arguments are rational and logical. You'll never get him to admit macro evolution happens though. Now, that would be a true miracle.
Who is the author of: "Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution" ?
Thank you.
God bless you to know and do His will!
I am, why?
if you guys do your own research instead of just listening to people who write their opinions without giving all the facts behind all the claims, you will discover that out of all scientists who work in the LIFE SCIENCES, only (.02%) at most believe in creationism. out of 450,000 of them only 9,000 believe in creationism.
THIS IS A FALLACIOUS ARTICLE!!!
if you read it far enough to read this comment, you just waisted some of your life just as i did…the only thing that kept me reading was the entertainment i was getting from the rediculous claims
How come creationists cant provide any evidence?
guys…make sure when answer this question, that is doesnt sound dumb?