Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Archaeopteryx]

good one. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything will lose energy and break down. The natural world and everything in it will eventually decay. The material world wears out and nothing lasts forever. Everything goes towards disorder and chaos. So evolution cannot create more order and complexity and this is what we are seeing over time. Scientists say that our universe will eventually expand to a point where everything freezes and all life will be destroyed.

steve, this claim - that thermodynamics makes evolution impossible - has been discredited so often that it now seems embarrassing to present it as a legitimate argument against evolution.

So if everything is destroyed and finished and our universe is no longer suitable for life is that it. Is there nothing forever whatever that may be. Once the universe reaches that point of destruction there's no coming back. So what we see now and what the future generations will see will be it. Surely there is more to things than that. Whats the point of evolution creating a life that can ask the questions and ponder something beyond this life only to end up with nothing and a darkness that has nothing sitting there.

There is no point in the sense that evolution isn't purpose-driven. Does this mean that everything is meaningless? No. We give life meaning. We make our lives worth living.

But as there are so many things that need to be just right to sustain life that may not ever happen. We are destroying the perfect conditions we have for life ourselves by pollution the earth and destroying its natural resources.

Which underscores the point that we need to care for our home.

To me God makes all the sense in this world. The amazing life and existence we see is more than just a matter of naturalistic processes creating themselves from nothing. We all know that existence is more than that and something cannot come from nothing. So we intuitively know that there is something at work beyond the material world.

Even if it were true that we all have this intuition, it's worthwhile bearing in mind that our intuitions are often mistaken or the product of wishful thinking.

But instead many would rather explain that away by giving chemicals and matter itself some creative powers to make things out of itself which is impossible.

But it's not impossible, steve. Natural processes are capable of producing complex systems.

But then time is made to be a god and with it all things are possible. There is not proof for this but people would rather give that the benefit of the doubt rather than a creator which everything seems to point towards.

What points toward a creator of the supernatural variety?

 

[paulm50]

So if everything is destroyed and finished and our universe is no longer suitable for life is that it. Is there nothing forever whatever that may be. Once the universe reaches that point of destruction there's no coming back. So what we see now and what the future generations will see will be it.

You pretty much nailed it there.

But we may not even get that far. The rate humans are going we may destroy the planet we are on now in the not to distant future. The way we are using it up is compounding any deterioration 10 fold. So what happens then we may only have a short time and then we've got to hope that the chance occurrence of life creating itself from non life has to somehow happen again somewhere.

The Planet will soldier on without Humans, that how evolution works. Eternal life is here to stay. Until the Universe of Sun collapses.

But as there are so many things that need to be just right to sustain life that may not ever happen. We are destroying the perfect conditions we have for life ourselves by pollution the earth and destroying its natural resources. If evolution is true then its created a monster which is destroying the very things it needs to survive, which is what I thought evolution was all about. But what many dont acknowledge is that we also have a spiritual side. Sin can cause us to become evil and we can be selfish and greedy. We can destroy and if we dont see this then we cannot fix it.

True. The sinners in the bible who said, go kill those Canaanites and we can have their land. And the sinners who tell us to keep multiplying.

To me God makes all the sense in this world. The amazing life and existence we see is more than just a matter of naturalistic processes creating themselves from nothing. We all know that existence is more than that and something cannot come from nothing. So we intuitively know that there is something at work beyond the material world.

No we don't all know that existence is more than that. We also know something can come from something, the nothing theory is false.

But instead many would rather explain that away by giving chemicals and matter itself some creative powers to make things out of itself which is impossible. But then time is made to be a god and with it all things are possible. There is not proof for this but people would rather give that the benefit of the doubt rather than a creator which everything seems to point towards.

Chemicals and matter have creative powers to make things out of itself.

And then you go on to make the impossible seem real. Unless god changes his ways and starts saving us. LOL

Nature's a hard master, screw with it and it will kick back. It will kick even without help. Enjoy your time here, be nice to others and don't worry about anything you can't change.

 

[stevevw]

steve, this claim - that thermodynamics makes evolution impossible - has been discredited so often that it now seems embarrassing to present it as a legitimate argument against evolution.

There is some evidence that we are deteriorating as a race. We are collecting small harmful mutations which are gradually making us less fit. But apart from that it seems that our environment is gradually being destroyed as well. If living things are dependent of the environment and that environment eventually becomes destroyed then that will destroy living things. A living thing can heal itself during a life time but will eventually decay and die. But once dead an energy source cannot make something dead to come back to life.

There is no point in the sense that evolution isn't purpose-driven. Does this mean that everything is meaningless? No. We give life meaning. We make our lives worth living.

That is easier said than done. It seems that many dont feel that way. Many have invested all their hopes in this world making them happy and giving them meaning. But we are seeing more and more people become depressed and end their lives because they think there is nothing worth living for. At the same time studies are showing that those who believe there is something more to life than the material world we see have better outlooks and hope. This seems to add something to their lives and gives them better health outcomes.

Which underscores the point that we need to care for our home.

Yes many of us realize this but many are not taking this serious. Estimates state that we are decades behind where we should be as far as cleaning up our acts such as the transference from pollution coal to new energies. But because coal is so cheap and a good source of $$$ many are not willing to let go. In fact there has been an increase. If you times this by the bad practices such as deforestation, poor farming techniques with chemicals which are stripping the soils of nutrients and the many other wasteful things we do we are still heading for a disaster.

We are seeing this with climate change and its only going to get worse. In fact we are inventing new ways to destroy the planet with things like fracking which is undermining the stability of the earth. All this is because we are hell bent on consumerism and material gain. We want things and use things and are not willing to give them up to the point of destroying our children's future and that of the earths.

Even if it were true that we all have this intuition, it's worthwhile bearing in mind that our intuitions are often mistaken or the product of wishful thinking.

That is true and we need to use all our senses to understand whats going on. But that also means we should be listening to what our consciences and our hearts are telling us. Many people are searching for something. They are not finding it in this material world.

But it's not impossible, steve. Natural processes are capable of producing complex systems.

How, you keep saying that and evolutionists keep claiming that. But they never show how this can happen. They think by explaining how mutations may make some changes to our existing systems that this also explains how the entire system was created. But they still dont explain how. They cant explain how a continuation of beneficial chance mutations can keep building a complex system which may require 100s if not 100s of beneficial mutations all working towards the same end adding a little more complexity from what was once simpler.

I came across this short video about how it is impossible for evolution to evolve a brain by a Neurosurgeon. The brain is like a maze of millions upon million of neurons all interconnected and communicating with the body. Even deeper than that it has aspects that give us all sorts of thinking like memories and abstract thinking. It just seems impossible for evolution to be able to create a brain.

What points toward a creator of the supernatural variety?

The finely tuned universe for one. I could say the complexity of life such as genetics being a code for making living things but then you will dispute that and say it can be explained like everything else as a natural phenomenon.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is easier said than done. It seems that many dont feel that way. Many have invested all their hopes in this world making them happy and giving them meaning. But we are seeing more and more people become depressed and end their lives because they think there is nothing worth living for. At the same time studies are showing that those who believe there is something more to life than the material world we see have better outlooks and hope. This seems to add something to their lives and gives them better health outcomes.

Hope can be found without religion.

That is true and we need to use all our senses to understand whats going on. But that also means we should be listening to what our consciences and our hearts are telling us. Many people are searching for something. They are not finding it in this material world.

It does not follow that therefore there must be a supernatural realm in which their desires can be satisfied.

How, you keep saying that and evolutionists keep claiming that.

You're using the word "evolutionist" again.

But they never show how this can happen. They think by explaining how mutations may make some changes to our existing systems that this also explains how the entire system was created. But they still dont explain how. They cant explain how a continuation of beneficial chance mutations can keep building a complex system which may require 100s if not 100s of beneficial mutations all working towards the same end adding a little more complexity from what was once simpler.

As I recommended earlier, consult a course on this topic. You don't appear to understand the fundamentals.

I came across this short video about how it is impossible for evolution to evolve a brain by a Neurosurgeon.

To the best of my knowledge, Carson is a neurosurgeon, not a neuroscientist. He performs surgery on the brain. That doesn't make him an expert on its evolution.

The finely tuned universe for one. I could say the complexity of life such as genetics being a code for making living things but then you will dispute that and say it can be explained like everything else as a natural phenomenon.

How does the "finely tuned" universe point to a supernatural designer? And what do you mean by "finely tuned"?

 

[bhsmte]

good one. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything will lose energy and break down. The natural world and everything in it will eventually decay. The material world wears out and nothing lasts forever. Everything goes towards disorder and chaos. So evolution cannot create more order and complexity and this is what we are seeing over time. Scientists say that our universe will eventually expand to a point where everything freezes and all life will be destroyed.

So if everything is destroyed and finished and our universe is no longer suitable for life is that it. Is there nothing forever whatever that may be. Once the universe reaches that point of destruction there's no coming back. So what we see now and what the future generations will see will be it. Surely there is more to things than that. Whats the point of evolution creating a life that can ask the questions and ponder something beyond this life only to end up with nothing and a darkness that has nothing sitting there.

But we may not even get that far. The rate humans are going we may destroy the planet we are on now in the not to distant future. The way we are using it up is compounding any deterioration 10 fold. So what happens then we may only have a short time and then we've got to hope that the chance occurrence of life creating itself from non life has to somehow happen again somewhere.

But as there are so many things that need to be just right to sustain life that may not ever happen. We are destroying the perfect conditions we have for life ourselves by pollution the earth and destroying its natural resources. If evolution is true then its created a monster which is destroying the very things it needs to survive, which is what I thought evolution was all about. But what many dont acknowledge is that we also have a spiritual side. Sin can cause us to become evil and we can be selfish and greedy. We can destroy and if we dont see this then we cannot fix it.

To me God makes all the sense in this world. The amazing life and existence we see is more than just a matter of naturalistic processes creating themselves from nothing. We all know that existence is more than that and something cannot come from nothing. So we intuitively know that there is something at work beyond the material world.

But instead many would rather explain that away by giving chemicals and matter itself some creative powers to make things out of itself which is impossible. But then time is made to be a god and with it all things are possible. There is not proof for this but people would rather give that the benefit of the doubt rather than a creator which everything seems to point towards.

Steve,

So many of your arguments have been refuted countless times, yet you keep repeating them.

Why is that?

 

[paulm50]

There is some evidence that we are deteriorating as a race. We are collecting small harmful mutations which are gradually making us less fit. But apart from that it seems that our environment is gradually being destroyed as well. If living things are dependent of the environment and that environment eventually becomes destroyed then that will destroy living things. A living thing can heal itself during a life time but will eventually decay and die. But once dead an energy source cannot make something dead to come back to life.

We are less fit because of lifestyle in the West.

You have repeated your belief that everything will die. That may happen in billions of years. When Man has ruined the environment so bad, Man and many species can't survive. Other species will flourish.

As for the energy source that fuels the Earth, no need to worry about it. We'll be extinct by the time that happens.

 

[stevevw]

You pretty much nailed it there

That seems a pity. feel sorry for those who have a horrible existence in this life now if thats all there is. Thats where a belief in the afterlife can give hope and reason to a person. Its OK for those who have a comfortable and happy life in this one but not for the many who dont. There experience of existence can come down to pain and suffering for a few years and then thats it.

Why would anyone even care if this is all there is. They would be ensuring that they have the best life they can in this short time. Afterall why worry if there's no consequences for what you do. Afterall evolution is survival of the fittest so if there's a few to many burdensome people who are not keeping up then they are just taking up valuable space and resources that the rest of us need.

The Planet will soldier on without Humans, that how evolution works. Eternal life is here to stay. Until the Universe of Sun collapses.

And when the universe ends there will be nothing. For such a great thing as life you would hope that it would continue somewhere, somehow. I thought evolution was about life evolving not planets and stars.

We can destroy and if we dont see this then we cannot fix it.

Fair enough but the problem is many do see it but still dont want to do anything about it. They dont want to give up their creature comforts and material lifestyles to save some planet.

 

[paulm50]

That seems a pity. feel sorry for those who have a horrible existence in this life now if thats all there is. Thats where a belief in the afterlife can give hope and reason to a person. Its OK for those who have a comfortable and happy life in this one but not for the many who dont. There experience of existence can come down to pain and suffering for a few years and then thats it.

Why do you assume you have a happier life than me? I'm enjoying this life to the full, I have no fear of death and I faced it. I have no worries if I'm good enough to make the grade to go to this afterlife.

As for those who don't have a great life, I doubt if religion can help many of them. Over the last 10,000 years and maybe longer. Religion has been the cause of misery.

Why would anyone even care if this is all there is. They would be ensuring that they have the best life they can in this short time. Afterall why worry if there's no consequences for what you do. Afterall evolution is survival of the fittest so if there's a few to many burdensome people who are not keeping up then they are just taking up valuable space and resources that the rest of us need.

There are consequences for what one does here on Earth. The fear of consequences in an afterlife, delivered by a god who sees all. Is the ultimate CCTV.

And when the universe ends there will be nothing. For such a great thing as life you would hope that it would continue somewhere, somehow. I thought evolution was about life evolving not planets and stars.

Like the afterlife, it won't happen when I'm to suffer from it. so why worry? Evolution is tied to more than life on Earth. It was the Universe that created the Sun, Earth, and life on Earth.

 

[stevevw]

Hope can be found without religion.

Yes true

It does not follow that therefore there must be a supernatural realm in which their desires can be satisfied.

It doesn't follow but its possible and it makes some sense. People know that the material world doesn't give them what they are looking for. Whether this is expressed in all that glitters is not gold, or its not whats on the outside that counts or what the bible says in storing up your treasures in heaven where thieves cant steal them away. They all have a non materialistic quality. The inclination for many is to want material possessions. The fastest growing part of the world is the developing nations and they have this unquenchable desire for material wealth, something we have enjoyed in the the modernized countries for years. We are using things at a phenomenal rate and piling up mountains of waste. It seems this worlds true target for happiness is things. But the more we get them the more we realize its not the answer.

You're using the word "evolutionist" again.

Sorry but its in the dictionary.
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

As I recommended earlier, consult a course on this topic. You don't appear to understand the fundamentals.

I understand the fundamentals very well. I just dont agree with them. I wonder sometimes if others really do as well as they say. Like I said its a tricky thing as what you are thinking evolution is may be different to another.

To the best of my knowledge, Carson is a neurosurgeon, not a neuroscientist. He performs surgery on the brain. That doesn't make him an expert on its evolution.

No but it makes him an expert on how the brain works more than an expert on evolution. It doesn't take an expert to understand the basic mechanism for evolution and how it works. So he can easily know what it takes to make a brain and know that it cannot happen through mutations using a step wise process that doesn't know what its building in the end.

How does the "finely tuned" universe point to a supernatural designer? And what do you mean by "finely tuned"?

Well it points to design in the universe and design to make the conditions of the universe just right for life. If you want to say that a non supernatural agent was involved then do so if you believe that. But the fact is it points to design because for so many things to have fallen into place and be so right at the same time by a chance and random act is impossible.

I think they have calculated the odds at a massive chance. Just the odds for the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be precisely balanced. If you increase it by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th then only small stars will form. Decrease it by the same amount and only large stars will form. To have life there must be both large stars (to produce the elements) and small stars to burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.

So the odds for this are 1 in a 1 followed by 40 zeros happening and thats just for one constant. Times thats by the many other constants all being just right and you begin to get impossible odds. Something like a one with as many zeros that outnumber all the atoms in the known universe of happening which is impossible of course. So those odds point to our universe having some design in it and therefore someone who designed it.
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry but its in the dictionary.
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

It doesn't matter whether it's in the dictionary. Scientists don't use the term.

I understand the fundamentals very well. I just dont agree with them.

No, you really don't. Your understanding is poor. I'm trying to be polite here, but you are really stretching my patience. I'm sorry, your poor understanding of evolution doesn't reflect poorly on evolution, but only on your understanding of it.

No but it makes him an expert on how the brain works more than an expert on evolution.

Which means that his expertise isn't relevant here. He is a surgeon, not an evolutionary biologist.

It doesn't take an expert to understand the basic mechanism for evolution and how it works. So he can easily know what it takes to make a brain and know that it cannot happen through mutations using a step wise process that doesn't know what its building in the end.

No, again, he is a surgeon. To the best of my knowledge, he isn't even a neuroscientist, which means that his work involves cutting into brains, not necessarily studying them. His opinion on this topic is quite simply irrelevant.

Well it points to design in the universe and design to make the conditions of the universe just right for life. If you want to say that a non supernatural agent was involved then do so if you believe that. But the fact is it points to design because for so many things to have fallen into place and be so right at the same time by a chance and random act is impossible.
I think they have calculated the odds at a massive chance. Just the odds for the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be precisely balanced. If you increase it by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th then only small stars will form. Decrease it by the same amount and only large stars will form. To have life there must be both large stars (to produce the elements) and small stars to burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.

So the odds for this are 1 in a 1 followed by 40 zeros happening and thats just for one constant. Times thats by the many other constants all being just right and you begin to get impossible odds. Something like a one with as many zeros that outnumber all the atoms in the known universe of happening which is impossible of course. So those odds point to our universe having some design in it and therefore someone who designed it.
An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

Why focus on life specifically? Think of all the things that had to be "just right" for this conversation to take place. You and I both had to born in the same period of time, out of all the periods in which we could have been born. You and I both had to be born in a country that teaches English, out of all the non-English speaking countries we could have been born into. You and I had to find ourselves in a country where internet access is available. The internet itself had to be invented! And then, after all that, we had to find this particular forum, out of all the hundreds of forums out there, and this particular thread, out of all the thousands of threads on CF. Add to that all the other things that had to be "just right" and you end up concluding that the probability of this conversation happening is astronomically small! And yet here we are, engaged in this conversation. What are the odds?

 

[stevevw]

Francis Collins believes in theistic evolution. He also said this about life.

The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself.
Francis Collins.

But the point here is he believes God created the information necessary for life and it didn't create itself. It would have never happened unless there was an intelligent creator that started the process and put in place all the necessary ingredients to continue to evolve life. In this sense evolution relies on existing info to create more complex life. So the only thing he is agreeing with is that all life has a common ancestor. But that common ancestor was created by God and had the ingredients to create life. At least he acknowledges that God had to be a part of it and it could not have created itself without Him.

 

[pshun2404]

Even I see we are descended from common human ancestors but does that preclude all life forms extant today have a common ancestral creature as their ultimate source? For that I do not see the evidence is clear (but some can interpret it that way) and I have looked thoroughly. I do see all dogs had common dog ancestors, all Nautilus had a common Nautilus ancestors, all Therepods had common Therapod ancestors, and so on...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Francis Collins believe in theistic evolution. He also said this about life.

The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself.
Francis Collins.

But the point here is he believes God created the information necessary for life and it didn't create itself. It would have never happened unless there was an intelligent creator that started the process and put in place all the necessary ingredients to continue to evolve life. In this sense evolution relies on existing info to create more complex life. So the only thing he is agreeing with is that all life has a common ancestor. But that common ancestor was created by God and had the ingredients to create life. At least he acknowledges that God had to be a part of it and it could not have created itself without Him.

The point is that he accepts that evolution is a reality.

 

[pshun2404]

I have heard it said over and over (a common propaganda technique) here, and on other forums, that “Science is self-correcting”. This is NOT true…”science” is NOT self-correcting. This is a misnomer....

What happens is that “scientists” (an intelligence) who shape experiments, interpret data, and draw conclusions from that data are called out by others, often these are other scientists (outside intelligences), who point out flaws or errors in their methods, practices, interpretations, or conclusions.

Sometimes it is the result of newly acquired data but not always…sometimes it is simply they were wrong, or drew erroneous conclusions.

So if you have been indoctrinated with this mantra (which people often repeat verbatim) please free yourself from this programming. Looking at things with fresh eyes, as considering rationales outside of the box, is important to objectivity and intellectual integrity in or out of science.

“Science” has no innate power of its own without intelligence being involved. It is merely one tool by which pre-existing intelligences can explore, discover, and explain (and not always the only plausible explanation) our Universe and world.

Paul

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have heard it said over and over (a common propaganda technique) here, and on other forums, that “Science is self-correcting”. This is NOT true…”science” is NOT self-correcting. This is a misnomer....

What happens is that “scientists” (an intelligence) who shape experiments, interpret data, and draw conclusions from that data are called out by others, often these are other scientists (outside intelligences), who point out flaws or errors in their methods, practices, interpretations, or conclusions.

Sometimes it is the result of newly acquired data but not always…sometimes it is simply they were wrong, or drew erroneous conclusions.

So if you have been indoctrinated with this mantra (which people often repeat verbatim) please free yourself from this programming. Looking at things with fresh eyes, as considering rationales outside of the box, is important to objectivity and intellectual integrity in or out of science.

“Science” has no innate power of its own without intelligence being involved. It is merely one tool by which pre-existing intelligences can explore, discover, and explain (and not always the only plausible explanation) our Universe and world.

Paul

That's exactly what people mean when they say "science is self-correcting." They mean that scientists reconsider their conclusions when either they or other scientists find errors in their methods or interpretations. They aren't implying that science is somehow able to mindlessly correct itself. You're reading too much into it.

 

[pshun2404]

That's exactly what people mean when they say "science is self-correcting." They mean that scientists reconsider their conclusions when either they or other scientists find errors in their methods or interpretations. They aren't implying that science is somehow able to mindlessly correct itself. You're reading too much into it.

If what you say is true, then this is actually no different than any other field as far as I can see, so to me it makes no sense why it is always used in these discussions to set evolutionists apart...again to me, they always seem to use this to imply some kind of "better than your approach" or "our approach is more reliable"....as if thinking outside the box, or seeing a different conclusion in the data, or imagining alternate possibilities is somehow not as reliable...

If this is nothing more than admission of possible incorrectness, or used as an excuse for when someone points out questionable logic, then why not just say that? It is perfectly reasonable to know one does not know and consider legitimate concerns of others and believe me I say the same thing regarding some in the creationist camp. There are some things we can know and others that are merely interpretations (the area where incorrectness or insight is found)...its okay to be different then the rest of the flock (whether that flock is EBs, Physicists, Theologists, Philosophers, etc.) there is almost always an observer of a chess match that sees the error in the losing players move while they themselves miss it.

So when I read George C. William's, Plan and Purpose in Nature: The Limits of Darwinian Evolution, I realized that all the controversy some of his thoughts ignited was just refusal to think outside the box by the consensus. It led me down an entirely different path in my thinking about science and faith...it made me buck the consensus of my vocational peers and my church leadership. Here was a well respected EB using all the language of design and intent without using those terms.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't matter whether it's in the dictionary. Scientists don't use the term.

No, you really don't. Your understanding is poor. I'm trying to be polite here, but you are really stretching my patience. I'm sorry, your poor understanding of evolution doesn't reflect poorly on evolution, but only on your understanding of it.

So you have said several times. But you never explain how I am wrong of dont understand. Besides it is not me who is saying this stuff but the scientists who write the papers. I have posted many links to support what I say and still you give no rebuttal. You just keep repeating that I am either wrong or dont understand. Yet how do I know you even understand yourself when you dont even explain yourself.

Which means that his expertise isn't relevant here. He is a surgeon, not an evolutionary biologist.

He is an expert brain biology. He knows better than anyone how the brain works and what it takes to create the complex systems that operate it. He know this even better than most experts on evolution. It doesn't take rocket science to understand the basic idea of how evolution works. It claims to be able to create new and complex functions out of what was not there to begin with through a gradual process.

So he being a brain surgeon who understand the inner workings of the brain asks how can this happen. How can the brain which is so complex and requires many components to work together at the same time be created out of a random mutations which primarily are harmful.

See its easy for evolution to claim that it can transform an arm into a wing. It sounds feasible being that they both have a similar structure. But when they have to start explaining the thousands of smaller steps that have to happen with multiple random mutations building these complex things it breaks down. Evolution has never been able to explain this.

But if you have any evidence that it can then by all means post it so we can see. Show us how the process can work in detail with the 100s and sometimes 1000s of random mutations all working together to build a complex body part with all the parts that also connect that feature to the others parts of the body at the same time. See evolution uses these little tricks to explain the step wise creation of complex features. Such as the eye spot and the curving of membranes to form a cup for an eye.

They all sound like logical steps to building an eye. But they fail to explain how the eye spot got there in the first place. Or where the cup shape came from and how was it formed. There are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure. Do these structures represent single-step mutations or dozens working together.

Thats not to mention the connections to the brain which will make the connections to operate it all and give perception for vision which has to be processed. All this takes many mutations working together but evolution has never explained how this can work let alone proven it in tests.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/rebutting_karl_giberson_and_fr046491.html

No, again, he is a surgeon. To the best of my knowledge, he isn't even a neuroscientist, which means that his work involves cutting into brains, not necessarily studying them. His opinion on this topic is quite simply irrelevant.

This is another example of putting down the person involved because they dispute what is said. If it goes against the evidence then try to discredit whoever said it rather than acknowledge their ability. If he is a brain surgeon then he has to study the brain to be able to know what he is cutting or not cutting. A mechanic doesn't just start pulling the motor apart without knowing how it works.

Why focus on life specifically? Think of all the things that had to be "just right" for this conversation to take place. You and I both had to born in the same period of time, out of all the periods in which we could have been born. You and I both had to be born in a country that teaches English, out of all the non-English speaking countries we could have born into. You and I had to find ourselves in a country where internet access is available. The internet itself had to be invented! And then, after all that, we had to find this particular forum, out of all the hundreds of forums out there, and this particular thread, out of all the thousands of threads on CF. Add to that all the other things that had to be "just right" and you end up concluding that the probability of this conversation happening is astronomically small! And yet here we are, engaged in this conversation. What are the odds?

No that is a poor example. All those things you mentioned can be done by many others who can be on this forum. When you take humans and all forums and the internet as a whole it is not so special. Its like singling out a particular star being made in a particular part of the universe. Its not so special. But the particular parameters for making the universe work and for life to exist are very special.

I guess thats why scientists came up with the idea of multiverses. Because if our universe is just one of billions and billions of universes chances are there maybe one similar to ours or very close. So then its not so special and we just happen to end up in the one particular one that made life. There could be others out there that made a different sort of life but its still life and takes away from ours being special.

 

[stevevw]

If what you say is true, then this is actually no different than any other field as far as I can see, so to me it makes no sense why it is always used in these discussions to set evolutionists apart...again to me, they always seem to use this to imply some kind of "better than your approach" or "our approach is more reliable"....as if thinking outside the box, or seeing a different conclusion in the data, or imagining alternate possibilities is somehow not as reliable...

If this is nothing more than admission of possible incorrectness, or used as an excuse for when someone points out questionable logic, then why not just say that? It is perfectly reasonable to know one does not know and consider legitimate concerns of others and believe me I say the same thing regarding some in the creationist camp. There are some things we can know and others that are merely interpretations (the area where incorrectness or insight is found)...its okay to be different then the rest of the flock (whether that flock is EBs, Physicists, Theologists, Philosophers, etc.) there is almost always an observer of a chess match that sees the error in the losing players move while they themselves miss it.

So when I read George C. William's, Plan and Purpose in Nature: The Limits of Darwinian Evolution, I realized that all the controversy some of his thoughts ignited was just refusal to think outside the box by the consensus. It led me down an entirely different path in my thinking about science and faith...it made me buck the consensus of my vocational peers and my church leadership. Here was a well respected EB using all the language of design and intent without using those terms.

Science itself is meant to be self correcting but unfortunately there are humans who do the science who are not. Its the same for anything. Religion is suppose to help people but unfortunately there are people who dont who represent religion.

 

[stevevw]

The point is that he accepts that evolution is a reality.

Its funny how many atheists quickly state that any reference from a Christian or religious site connected with science is questionable and invalid and want purely scientific peer reviewed support to be credible. This is a good example that it doesn't matter so much what affiliation a person has to be right or wrong. I could bring up scientists who disagree with Dr Collins as well and believe in Gods creation like Professor John Lennox. Or maybe this one.

Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.

-Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics