A quick interview for the creation-minded

[PuzzledBread]

To shorten my story just head here http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7352109

If this interview seems biased I'm really sorry, I tried my best and you need to understand I tried to focus on the empirical aspects, not the philosophical ones, because this is a debate over whether creationism should be in public schools, not whether or not it is correct.

1. Please provide your name, occupation, and any qualifications you have.

2. Is there any evidence against evolution/creationism? Please cite sources.

3. If you think evolution has occurred, please state what has convinced you. If you do not think evolution has occurred, same question.

4. Without detracting the other side of the argument, please explain what your side of the argument has to say about how the following phenomenon can be explained.

A. Abundance of species which show evidence of common ancestors, including transition species.

B. Similarity of Ape-Human DNA

C. Why are there 46 chromosomes in humans, and 48 in the great apes?

D. How do you explain genetic mutations, diseases, and vestigial organs.

E. Antibiotic Resistance

F. Selective Breeding

5. Does refuting evolution prove creationism? How do you then explain the age of the earth, stars, planets, the evidence for life billions of years ago, and geological evidence of an old earth? Please cite sources

6. Why should/shouldn't creationism reach science classrooms?

thanks to anyone who fills this out

 

[Chesterton]

I'd recommend you post this in either Origins Theology:

http://www.christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=143

or its Creationism sub-forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=425

Actually I just noticed your icon, and I don't know if you can, but maybe.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You first need to understand how a Creation Scientist thinks. The questions you have asked are really just things you feel proves evolution, it is a big ask to disprove all of them so I have started with just one point what creationists think of mutations and inherited characteristics. Please read http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp by Doctor Garry Parker

After you understand how a creationst thinks about inheritance then your questions can more easily be answered. Infact it would be a good idea for you to do a search of http://www.answersingenesis.org for answers to your questions, they have experts in their respective fields not novices.

Name: Robert Palmer
Qualifications: Bachelor of Computing

 

[PuzzledBread]

I'd recommend you post this in either Origins Theology:


or its Creationism sub-forum:


Actually I just noticed your icon, and I don't know if you can, but maybe.

Yeah, I don't feel comfortable quickly converting and deconverting to get on the forum , I'm sure if you guys are right god would see I was faking it anyways

You first need to understand how a Creation Scientist thinks. The questions you have asked are really just things you feel proves evolution, it is a big ask to disprove all of them so I have started with just one point what creationists think of mutations and inherited characteristics. Please read by Doctor Garry Parker

After you understand how a creationst thinks about inheritance then your questions can more easily be answered. Infact it would be a good idea for you to do a search of for answers to your questions, they have experts in their respective fields not novices.

Name: Robert Palmer
Qualifications: Bachelor of Computing

Thing is I've done the research and I really can't see an accepted perspective from the creationist side to account for things like this. I've tried contacting AiG, and they wouldn't help. I also am required to have two interviews.

I structured this with questions that evolution answers extremely well, and if creation wants to take a side next to it in science classrooms, it also needs an explanation for these questions that is accepted in their community. I think that's as fair and objective as this can get. If its about science I am not asking about god, because god is not something you prove, its something you have faith in. Which can be a beautiful thing, just not in science classrooms.

And your statement that I need to know how creation scientists think, I mean, if they're going to call themselves scientists they need to think a certain way. Psychologists, Biologists, Cosmologists, and Physicists all come from completely different fields, but they all leave their biases at the door (At least most of them do, and they all know they should) for the sake of objectivity. When it comes to their job they think using the scientific method. None should deviate and think without an objective logic on the job. I shouldn't need to learn the way one type of scientist thinks when it comes to their research. Because they all think on the same terms.

But I went ahead and read the article you provided and it just confirmed what I knew, it was based on looking at probability and saying "THOSE NUMBERS ARE HUGE! ITS IMPOSSIBLE! Without any context on time, just random probabilities without explanation". The up and down argument is ridiculous because poor mutations are removed by natural selection, the entire argument is pointless, because its already been explained away. Good adaptions in creatures allow them to mate more, bad adaptions kill them before they mate. And the last argument, just.... I mean.... you could apply that anywhere. The fact music mutates means it must have been created at the state before it mutated, therefore I propose because Punk Rock exists, And its a mutation of Rock and Roll. Rock and Roll was created by god.

I find the last paragraph clever though.

"To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all."

This is true, it does need quality control. That whole "Given infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters you will eventually recreate the entire works of Shakespeare" doesn't apply here. We have billions of years and limited life, without some binding force it can't happen. But science has discovered a quality control system, a concept somehow missing from this entire paper. Natural selection. Its quite a strong force. Those best fit for an environment survive, those unfit for any environment they could possibly reach and mate in in their lifetime die. That is the force holding these random mutations together.

I really didn't feel like getting heated right now, I honestly don't see a reason to, your beliefs are your beliefs. But when I see someone saying completely false arguments that they want taught in schools I lose my mind. Our education system is bad enough as it is, and I don't need more people screwing up my order at McDonalds because science curriculum took a hit. If you want to not find one of the countless ways to reconcile with science, be my guest.

Anyways.... just I don't want to give questions away to either side. I honestly don't see how I could make it more fair without putting a give away question in there. How could I do this better and remain objective?

 

[Chesterton]

The fact music mutates means it must have been created at the state before it mutated, therefore I propose because Punk Rock exists, And its a mutation of Rock and Roll.

Hey, punk is rock and roll. It's the stuff on the radio which is the defective mutation.

Rock and Roll was created by god.

Now you're calling Kiss a liar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWCZmAFVrx4

 

[PuzzledBread]

Hey, punk is rock and roll. It's the stuff on the radio which is the defective mutation.



Now you're calling Kiss a liar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWCZmAFVrx4

I lol'd, pretty hard.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

This is an answer for question A.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

 

[PuzzledBread]

This is an answer for question A.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

You're not getting me, I need an interview, I've done research on my own, I asked you to cite sources for your own arguments and thoughts, not to just give me sources. I've read this before.

 

[Kothlis]

Hi PuzzledBread,

Psychologists, Biologists, Cosmologists, and Physicists all come from completely different fields, but they all leave their biases at the door (At least most of them do, and they all know they should) for the sake of objectivity. When it comes to their job they think using the scientific method. None should deviate and think without an objective logic on the job. I shouldn't need to learn the way one type of scientist thinks when it comes to their research. Because they all think on the same terms.

I agree, and with that in mind I would ask you as to how you can prove evolution by science using the scientific method? By the term "evolution" I am referring to the microbe-to-man evolution, that is, a historical process.

 

[PuzzledBread]

Hi PuzzledBread,

I agree, and with that in mind I would ask you as to how you can prove evolution by science using the scientific method? By the term "evolution" I am referring to the microbe-to-man evolution, that is, a historical process.

Go to another thread if you need that, this isn't a discussion thread, there are others if you need to pretend evolution hasn't happened.

Anyways, can someone PLEASE, just answer my interview questions, and stop making this a thread arguing creationism. Its a school project, who cares if there's bias in the questions, I'm not trying to destroy your beliefs, I'm trying to pass, let my teacher fret over the fact it has bias or not. Just please drop this and answer someone, I have a week left and I had no problem finding a PhD to interview for evolution's argument, is there seriously no one willing to just answer these questions?

 

[Kothlis]

Go to another thread if you need that, this isn't a discussion thread, there are others if you need to pretend evolution hasn't happened.

I didn't intend to argue whether evolution did or did not happen by my last comment. The point was to get you to question how the scientific method can be used to prove a historical event as you cannot observe and experiment what happened in the past because all the data exists in the present.

Only the natural sciences (like physics, chemistry, etc.) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena is testable. When it comes to origins science, scientists are not as objective as you perceive them to be as they must make assumptions to fill in the gaps that exist when trying to use data and observations in the present to make inferences about the past. These assumptions are inherently influenced by their underlying belief systems.

In sciences that are done in the present that relate to the present, that is, operations or process science (the kind of science that put man on the moon, for example), there are little to no room for the scientists underlying belief systems to affect their work, because few to no assumptions are needed.

Anyways, enough of that ... I'll help out and answer your questions.

 

[Kothlis]

Your questions have been answered time and time again by creationists, so if you do really want to know the answers to them, then The Answers Book is a good place to start. As such I'll very briefly outline a few notes to most of your questions.

1. Please provide your name, occupation, and any qualifications you have.

An average Joe, full time student, commerce.

A. Abundance of species which show evidence of common ancestors, including transition species.

There has not been one undisputed example of a transitional fossil. There are some candidates, but that’s all they are and they themselves are disputed. Archaeopteryx, for example, is a bird and not a transitional form. A CT of its skull showed that it had a brain like that of a modern bird, and also had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying, among other things.

B. Similarity of Ape-Human DNA

This may also be due to a common designer. For example, a Porsche and a Volkswagen "Beetle" car, though very different cars, have many similarities because they have the same designer.

If animals and humans did not share similar biochemistry, then it would be logical to suggest that there were many creators and there would have to be separate plant kingdoms for animals and humans to eat. We could also not eat animals if their biochemistry were completely different.

Similarity also does not mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function. Consider any statement (for example: I do love both my parents and grandparents), and then put the word "not" in there - the statements may have a high percentage of homology, but the meaning becomes completely different. Consider further that even a 97% similarity leaves 120 million base pairs that are equivalent to about 12 million words of difference ... it is difficult to imagine mutations could cross that bridge.

D. How do you explain genetic mutations, diseases, and vestigial organs. E. Antibiotic Resistance

Firstly, vestigial organs don't prove evolution - rather the opposite. Evolutionary thinking requires that there be an increasing complexity in organs.

Secondly, it is impossible to prove that an organ is useless as the function may simply be unknown and its use may be discovered in the future, as has happened with more than 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans. For example, the appendix and tonsils are now known to play an important part in humans.

Thirdly, creation allows for deterioration of a perfect creation since the fall.

As for mutations, another poster covered this issue. In general, scientists treat mutations as genetic load or burden. Many diseases are, as a case in point, caused by mutations (for example, I have diaphyseal aclasis that is caused by a mutation). There has not been one observable mutation that increases the amount of information as Lee Spetner points out in his book Not By Chance! Shattering The Modern Theory Of Evolution. That isn't to say that mutations can't be beneficial, they can and have been observed to be such. For example, one way that a bacteria can gain resistance is if it has a mutation in the DNA that codes for a protein that the antibiotic binds with, the antibiotics cannot bind with the protein and so the mutant bacteria survives in the presence of antibiotics. Bacteria can also become resistant by gaining DNA from other bacteria. Notice that in either case, there is no new information being created (which is a requirement of microbe-to-man evolution) - the former is a loss, the latter is simply moved around. As strange as it sounds, the mutant bacteria is actually less fit to survive outside a hospital...

Natural selection, likewise, results in a loss of information. For a simple example, take a selection of dogs to a very cold environment. Eventually, only the dogs with long fur will survive and the ones with short or no fur will die out - before we had a variety, after we had only dogs with long fur. Natural selection works by eliminating traits from a population that make a creature unable to survive and it is a reality that creationists observe and can readily explain. In fact, Edward Blythe discovered natural selection before Darwin and saw it instead as a way of slowing down the negative effects of the curse.

F. Selective Breeding

You are merely selecting traits that are already present to preserve or remove. It is artificial natural selection. Once again, note that no new information is being generated ... which is what you need to change a microbe (1 book of 500 pages of information) into a human being (1000 books of 500 pages of information).

5. Does refuting evolution prove creationism?

No. It is indicative, however, that if evolution as an ideology (note that evolutionary thinking is not new - it's been around for thousands of years) cannot explain how life could have come into existence by purely natural means, that there is a Creator.

6. Why should/shouldn't creationism reach science classrooms?

I suppose so that students can make an informed decision as to what they want to believe - not what certain people with their own agendas want them to believe. How can students make informed decisions about their worldviews when they are presented with only one interpretation of the evidence that is largely presented as truth when it deserves no such thing? They can't.

I've read about how when some university students attended a creation seminar and listened to what the speaker was talking about they ended up asking questions about not about evolution, but about religion. Who knows? Maybe because of that seminar and those students hearing about creation that their souls were secured in Christ. I would not like to see other students denied that chance.


Sources:
Batten, D (ed.) 2002, The Updated & Expanded Answers Book, Answers in Genesis Ltd, Acacia Ridge.
Purdon, G 2007, Antibiotic resistance of bacteria: an example of evolution in action?, Answers in Genesis, viewed 16 March, 2009, <answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria>.
Sarfati, J 2000, Archaeopteryx is a true bird, not a "missing link", Answers in Genesis, viewed 16 March, 2009, <creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link>.

 

[PuzzledBread]

*
Edit: Thanks Kothlis! That was very thorough! Now I can finish this paper . And if you don't mind your real name and some sort of e-mail would be helpful to cite it, just so my teacher can find you if he decides its necessary. (You can PM it if you don't feel comfortable over the forums.)

 

[salida]

Why are you interested in doing a paper on this? All I know is that it will be always unfair that there isn't a creationist point of view being taught in the public schools and colleges. We are being censored because the humanist/socialist are running the show now. Also, watch "Expelled" - its a great movie on how the intelligent design scientists are being persecuted by the dictatorship darwinist from the colleges. They are doing a great job on indoctrination instead of true education of showing at least both sides. I wish more students would think for themselves and not be herded by the secular humanist machine. I find it always sad and at the same time laughable that they think the universe came from thin air - I call this view the Twilight Zone View.

I hope you do well on your research paper and have learned both sides in depth. I have a B.S. in Biology even though I work as a chemist/other qualifications - much of my own research and book reading of both sides.

 

[PuzzledBread]

I find it always sad and at the same time laughable that they think the universe came from thin air - I call this view the Twilight Zone View.

I find it always sad and at the same time laughable that they think their god came from thin air and created something they deem needs creation, even though their creator ddn't need a creation to justify its existence- I call this view the Indoctrined Rationalization

 

[Kothlis]

*
Edit: Thanks Kothlis! That was very thorough! Now I can finish this paper . And if you don't mind your real name and some sort of e-mail would be helpful to cite it, just so my teacher can find you if he decides its necessary. (You can PM it if you don't feel comfortable over the forums.)

Sorry, I've been very busy at the moment with uni and all. Hmm, can't pm you. Anyway, my name is Matthew Hale; my email address is matthew . hale @ live . com . au without all the spaces in between, obviously.