Does belief in unsupported creation theories necessitate pseudoscience?

[AV1611VET]

Sure, selection involves a loss of genetic information. But that information is replenished through mutation. The combination of selection and mutation results in a net gain in information over time.

Here's the rest of the article:

• So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information. From information theory and a vast number of experiments and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity. Instead, they cause "noise" during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information. Not surprisingly, several thousand human diseases are now linked to mutations. This decrease in genetic information (from mutations, selection/adaption/speciation and extinction) is consistent with the concept of original created gene pools - with a large degree of initial variety - being depleted since. Since observed "micro" changes - such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in insects - are informationally downhill, or at best horizontal, they cannot accumulate to give the required (uphill) changes for "macro" evolution, regardless of the time period. These small changes are erroneously used as "proofs of evolution" in biology courses, yet they cannot be extrapolated to explain amoeba-to-man evolution. Such extrapolation is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit. The observed changes do, however, fit a Creation/Fall model well.

Ibid, pp. 25-26

 

[Tomk80]

Sure, selection involves a loss of genetic information. But that information is replenished through mutation. The combination of selection and mutation results in a net gain in information over time.

It is always very interesting to see how people like Ken Ham and his ilk always only use one part of the puzzle in their articles. In the part AV showed, they only use selection, completely neglecting the effects of mutation on the number of alleles in the population.

Meanwhile, in other articles, they will make great fuss over how mutations only increase 'disorder' and can never lead to anything in a population. But in these articles, they completely ignore selection.

It is telling that they never talk about the complete theory of evolution, but always only about half of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So? He was talking about marriage, and using a familiar story to the people of the day to press home a moral point. Can you prove that this viewpoint is wrong?

Basic Christianity aside, would it make sense talking against divorce by using evolution? Can you use evolution to critique divorce? Remember: it's "natural" for some animals to have more than one mate.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is always very interesting to see how people like Ken Ham and his ilk...

Here we go, folks.

...always only use one part of the puzzle in their articles. In the part AV showed, they only use selection, completely neglecting the effects of mutation on the number of alleles in the population.

Meanwhile, in other articles...

...they will make great fuss over how mutations only increase 'disorder' and can never lead to anything in a population. But in these articles, they completely ignore selecton.

It is telling that they never talk about the complete theory of evolution, but always only about half of it.

Shame on them!

 

[shernren]

Not in this case:

Hebrews 12:2

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith...

Your abuse of Scripture is horrifying. Hebrews 12:2 : Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith ... not Bible.

If you really believed that the Bible was written by God why are you butchering its meaning to prove your point?

As for Mark 10:6, I recently commented on it here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27599369&postcount=118 and will repeat the comment here.

============

I often wonder why Mark 10:6 is often quoted by creationists when it shows Jesus doing something bold to the Torah that they wouldn't even dream of.

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Mark 10:1-9, NIV)

v6 itself is no severe threat to an evolutionary view. "The beginning" of creation can easily be seen as the timeframe within which creation was made ready for man, since what follows is an anthropocentric view; it is true that from the beginning of mankind man has always been made male and female; Jesus intends to say that it was always God's express plan for man to carry out monogamous marriage, and TEism has no problem with that; even in a creationist view, man was created not at the "beginning" of creation but only on the sixth day, and from pre-existing matter at that.

But look very carefully at what is happening here. Jesus is doing nothing less than reinterpreting Moses' command to issue a certificate of divorce. The original reads:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Now, is there any indication whatsoever in the passage (Deuteronomy) that issuing a certificate of divorce is a response to man's hard-heartedness? No! There is no "By the way, this is not what God intended, it's a stopgap measure because you guys are wicked through and through" disclaimer, the passage rolls right along and reads no differently from what comes before and after.

While we're at it, the image of issuing a certificate of divorce is used of God Himself:

This is what the LORD says: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

(Isaiah 50:1, NIV)

I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

(Jeremiah 3:8, NIV)

Now, not only is Jesus suggesting that Moses' command was only issued as a response to man's sin, by attacking that image He is implying that same hard-heartedness in God. No wonder the Pharisees were incensed!

Now, why am I making such a big fuss about this? Because essentially the creationist complaint boils down to whether or not it is valid to reinterpret the scientific sense of the Torah. But here we see Jesus doing something more radical: He is reinterpreting the moral content of the Torah, and saying that this particular command is an accommodation to their moral primitivity at that time.

It's mind-boggling. Imagine if somebody were to say that "The Ugly Duckling is not good for children because it teaches them that animals talk", that would be a silly and useless accusation. But compare that to someone saying "The Ugly Duckling is not good for children because it equates beauty with worth" and suddenly the first complaint seems trivial.

In the same way, the TE reinterpretation comes across as trivial when compared to the boldness of what Jesus Himself did with the Torah. Jesus suggested that the Torah wasn't enough in certain moral areas; that a command to murder forbids sinful anger, the forbidding of adultery also forbids sinful sexual thoughts, and that the Sabbath is made for man instead of man for the Sabbath (which AFAIK is never put across as such in the OT). No wonder people wanted Him dead. And yet this is the same Man who came to "fulfill the Law" and warn that not a dot of it would pass away even though heaven and earth would.

Really, the reinterpretations TE suggests are trivial put next to the reinterpretations Jesus undertook.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your abuse of Scripture is horrifying. Hebrews 12:2 : Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith ... not Bible.

No abuse identified:

[bible]Romans 10:17[/bible]
[bible]Luke 24:27[/bible]
[bible]Acts 8:30-35[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

Here's the rest of the article:

• So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information. From information theory and a vast number of experiments and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity. Instead, they cause "noise" during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information. Not surprisingly, several thousand human diseases are now linked to mutations. This decrease in genetic information (from mutations, selection/adaption/speciation and extinction) is consistent with the concept of original created gene pools - with a large degree of initial variety - being depleted since. Since observed "micro" changes - such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in insects - are informationally downhill, or at best horizontal, they cannot accumulate to give the required (uphill) changes for "macro" evolution, regardless of the time period. These small changes are erroneously used as "proofs of evolution" in biology courses, yet they cannot be extrapolated to explain amoeba-to-man evolution. Such extrapolation is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit. The observed changes do, however, fit a Creation/Fall model well.

Ibid, pp. 25-26

Yeah, well, that's just plain wrong. From information theory, it is obvious that most mutations naturally increase information.

For example, from an information theory standpoint, this sequence has very little information:
AAAAAAAAAAA

If we make any single base pair substitution of the above sequence, for example:
AAAAAAAACAA
...then the information of the sequence, as measured by information entropy, has increased. In fact, the only types of mutation that can possibly decrease information are those that remove sections of DNA from the genome. The vast majority of mutations will act to randomize the genome, which, in turn, results in a net increase in information.

Natural selection acts to limit the increase in information entropy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Basic Christianity aside, would it make sense talking against divorce by using evolution? Can you use evolution to critique divorce? Remember: it's "natural" for some animals to have more than one mate.

Why try? I'd talk about divorce by looking at the effect it has on the members of the family and society as a whole. No reason to bring evolution (or creation) into it at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why try? I'd talk about divorce by looking at the effect is has on the members of the family and society as a whole. No reason to bring evolution (or creation) into it at all.

Not unless you wanted to point out that divorce is against the wishes of a holy God, Who instituted marriage in the first place.

Yes --- divorce affects family and society --- but the horizontal aside, it affects God too.

[bible]Mark 10:9[/bible]

 

[Tomk80]

Here's the rest of the article:

• So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information. From information theory and a vast number of experiments and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity. Instead, they cause "noise" during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information. Not surprisingly, several thousand human diseases are now linked to mutations. This decrease in genetic information (from mutations, selection/adaption/speciation and extinction) is consistent with the concept of original created gene pools - with a large degree of initial variety - being depleted since. Since observed "micro" changes - such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in insects - are informationally downhill, or at best horizontal, they cannot accumulate to give the required (uphill) changes for "macro" evolution, regardless of the time period. These small changes are erroneously used as "proofs of evolution" in biology courses, yet they cannot be extrapolated to explain amoeba-to-man evolution. Such extrapolation is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit. The observed changes do, however, fit a Creation/Fall model well.

Ibid, pp. 25-26

Oi veigh! My bad for not reading well.

However, this part does dig into another nice creationist ploy, their rape of information theory. But I'm not sure whether this goes too far off topic.

 

[Tomk80]

Not unless you wanted to point out that divorce is against the wishes of a holy God, Who instituted marriage in the first place.

Yes --- divorce affects family and society --- but the horizontal aside, it affects God too.

[bible]Mark 10:9[/bible]

That could be true regardless of evolution. All you need for it is a belief in a God who regards divorce as a sin.

 

[Praxiteles]

You keep ignoring Ken Ham has a liar, and you'll eventually talk yourself out of existing.

Huh? What does Ken Ham's low morals have to do with my existence?

They didn't, huh?

That's right, they didn't. And if I were you, I really, really, really wouldn't argue this point with me. (Hint: Check my profile).

Ya --- prior to Darwin it was as you said: 'racism'; today it's called 'evolution'.

The racist attitude toward native populations worldwide had nothing to do with Darwin or Evolution, since it was around long before either, empty-headed one liners notwithstanding.

 

[Tomk80]

What else would they be, Tom?

I have no idea AV, please tell me. What is so disgusting about calling Tasmanian aborigines fully homo sapiens, because that is exactly what they are. Do you know what the term "Homo sapiens" means?

Quoting this because I still would like to see an explanation.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Quoting this because I still would like to see an explanation.

I'm not psychic, but I think the user may have felt that you were suggesting some people that he might consider human are "subhuman". This wasn't strongly implied in anything you said, but I can see how someone might read a hint of racism into the "this race is fully homo sapien" comment.

All extant human peoples are descended from a common ancestry, and are not only of the same species, but "race" as a descriptor is largely a misnomer from a genetic perspective. This is accepted by science and most religions alike.

Trickster

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not psychic, but I think the user may have felt that you were suggesting some people that he might consider human are "subhuman". This wasn't strongly implied in anything you said, but I can see how someone might read a hint of racism into the "this race is fully homo sapien" comment.

All extant human peoples are descended from a common ancestry, and are not only of the same species, but "race" as a descriptor is largely a misnomer from a genetic perspective. This is accepted by science and most religions alike.

Trickster

Thank you, Trickster.

Indeed you're correct --- I was just going to ignore him and was checking this thread one last time before I deleted it from my subscription list.

I have very little patience (and absolutely no respect) for people who play dumb.

 

[Tomk80]

Thank you, Trickster.

Indeed you're correct --- I was just going to ignore him and was checking this thread one last time before I deleted it from my subscription list.

I have very little patience (and absolutely no respect) for people who play dumb.

Sorry for 'playing dumb', but I really did not understand your comments in the slightest. That is why I asked for clarification. I do not waste my time with 'playing dumb', I have better things to do. I do search for clarification and discussion though.

 

[Cirbryn]

You keep trying to place God's actions within the time stream He created. If He is as you describe Him, then He stands outside that. By the end of God's sixth day He finished creating all the organisms that ever lived or ever will live. Some of those He placed deep in our past. Some He placed far in our future. All of them He created using evolution, as is demonstrated by the evidence He left for us to find.

Either that, or He worked within the time-space continuum and created their prototypes ("kinds").

Evidence, of course, would be non-existent, since evidence points to cause-and-effect, but God used ex nihilo, instead.

AV, are you actually giving this some thought or are you just dashing off whatever response leaps into your head? The whole point of this conversation is to determine whether there’s anything in your religion to suggest God created species ex nihilo, so you can’t just waive off all the evidence for evolution based on the assumption that He did so.

God didn’t have to make things so that fossils would form. God didn’t have to make endogenous retroviruses. God didn’t have to make the various methods we have for calibrating age estimates, such as reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. He could have created species using evolution without leaving any evidence at all, but the existence of the above items indicates He went out of His way to leave evidence we wouldn’t even have expected. These things, according to your religion, were left directly by God; not inspired in a “secretary”.

So kindly show the matter a little respect by giving it some actual consideration. Your religion claims the Bible is the word of God, and that the evidence of the physical world is the creation of God. I am suggesting a means by which those two things may be reconciled. It doesn’t require you to disbelieve the literal truth of Genesis 1. It merely requires you to apply the consequences of another tenet held by your religion: that God stands outside of time. Are you going to do that honestly or not?

 

[Cirbryn]

Here's the rest of the article:

• So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information. From information theory and a vast number of experiments and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) are incapable of causing an increase in information and functional complexity. Instead, they cause "noise" during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information. Not surprisingly, several thousand human diseases are now linked to mutations. This decrease in genetic information (from mutations, selection/adaption/speciation and extinction) is consistent with the concept of original created gene pools - with a large degree of initial variety - being depleted since. Since observed "micro" changes - such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in insects - are informationally downhill, or at best horizontal, they cannot accumulate to give the required (uphill) changes for "macro" evolution, regardless of the time period. These small changes are erroneously used as "proofs of evolution" in biology courses, yet they cannot be extrapolated to explain amoeba-to-man evolution. Such extrapolation is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit. The observed changes do, however, fit a Creation/Fall model well.

Ibid, pp. 25-26

I just thought I'd add to Chalnoth's response to this that the above argument contradicts itself. If mutations merely cancelled existing information, without creating new information, then they wouldn't cause "noise" around the existing signal. "Noise" means new signals that interfere with the reception of the original signal. New signals means new information.

 

[Notamonkey]

I believe all the bible is the word of God. If I only picked and chose what I wanted to be true and ignored other verses how could I believe any of it? My faith is not dependant on science but it is supported by it. My and your family didn't come from a monkey. Many learned scientists with the same PhDs and other titles say evolution is scientifically impossible. The truth is the truth no matter how few people "believe" it. Science is not done by a democratic vote. Creationism is scientific until you come to God himself. We know what gravity is but we don't know WHY it is. We know how we give birth to a child but we don't know WHY. EVERY effect has a cause. God was the first cause. It is impossible without God for there to be life from non- life. There is no example of it and there never has been. Evolution violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermal dynamics. I have looked at both sides of the story, troubled with the conflict in my heart and now I know the truth.

 

[TheOutsider]

Too early to call Poe?