Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

[XtremeVision]

lucaspa, if [popularized] evolution is a natural mechanism explaining everything, and implies that God either doesn't exist or that He is not directly and divinely involved in natural affairs, then please explain Jesus and how the Salvation models tailors to this without conflict (fall of man, sacrafice, faith, etc).

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by XtremeVision

One of the tragedies of evolution is that people like you...
Oh wait...

 

And you comment on my character...tsk tsk...

 

 

[XtremeVision]

lucaspa, assuming it's unerrantly true, can you tell me WHY all that stuff you explained to bluetrinity is and HOW it came to be the way it is?

 

edit - FYI - I don't think "it just does" and "I don't have to explain it" constitute as "scientific" lol

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Smilin
And you comment on my character...tsk tsk...

 

 
You'll notice I stopped myself, duh.  And you fail to realize the satire here, in that it was an attempt to demonstrate his error by example.  Play fair dude.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision






Wrong.  This is still unfounded and is just pure speculation.

Not speculation. Observed fact.  Living cells have been generated from non-living amino acids by straight chemical reactions. See the work of Sidney Fox or do the experiment yourself in your own kitchen.

Evolution includes probability, randomness and constant change.  Though using facts, you are drawing the conclusion illogically: “I see complex design in nature, and nature is governed by randomness and changes, therefore the randomness and those changes are responsible for the complex design.”  Because it’s also excluding other possibilities that could be concluded just as equally.

Selection is not random.  Randomness provides the possible design solutions to the problem. Selection deterministically selects the best designs from the ones presented.

I never denied natural selection. And no, natural selection has not been shown to be responsible for the actual design appearance directly, just that design and natural selection co-exist in the whole process (see my previous comment).

Humans use natural selection to get designs that are too tough for them.  And experiments both in the lab and in the wild have shown that natural selection is directly causing designs. This is so because of the Hardy-Weinberg Law of genetics, deriving directly from Mendelian genetics.  In a population, the frequency of an allele stays constant unless some other process is acting.  Natural selection changes the frequency and can thus be objectively detected.  As one example, this experiment was conducted in the wild. The type of changes due to natural selection were predicted ahead of time because the environment was known, and the changes happened.  Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG.  Evaluationof the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poeciliareticulata).  Science 275:1934-1937, 1997.  The lay article isPredatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.  I've got the article in PDF format and can send it to you if you wish. A very elegant and conclusive demonstration of natural selection. 

I wasn’t interested in criteria and I don’t think science is limited by criteria for “creation” because it just simply doesn’t deal with it in the way it is necessary – which is a point we agree on- but NOT being able to address it does not automatically dismiss the possibility. I don’t believe it has falsified it, just presented another ALTERNATIVE to believe concerning the observations of biological processes, and it provides a scientific and detailed explanation for a possible mechanism used by a non-falsifiable Creator.  It cannot be used to discredit Christianity wholly or a Creator at all.

Your implicit criteria is the same as Paley's: you can determine manufacture solely by looking at the artifact.  I'm saying that this criteria is in error.  You don't look solely at the artifact to determine if it really is an artifact requiring outside manufacture. You also look at the environment where you find it.  Natural selection does falsify the proposed mechanism of outside manufacture used by a Creator.  As soon as you find transformation of one species to another and designs resulting from natural selection, then the outside manufacture hypothesis is falsified because such evidence is impossible if the hypothesis were true.

Evolution can't legitimately be used to discredit Christianity or the existence of a "Creator".  But trying to discredit evolution is irrelevant to that.  What you have to show is that evolution simply doesn't say what the atheists say it says. Evolution is still valid, but the interpretation of evolution made by Provine and Atkins is not valid.   

Quite a nice exaggeration but not properly supported. As a small example: the ICR is not a scientific effort?

Oh, I can support it. I just didn't take the room to do so here.  See The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis Young.  or Genesis and Geology.  It's all documented in the work of 18th and 19th century scientists.  And no, ICR is not a scientific effort.  They do no science and their oath forbids them from doing science.  They have to support the theory -- YEC -- no matter what the data says, and you can't do science under those circumstances.

They have research labs and publications.

Evolution has bias implications and one being that God/Creator is unnecessary by default.  If a Christian follows this dogma, then they would have a hard time explaining a lot of things, most importantly God's existence.

Again, separate the atheists from evolution.  Evolution has no biased implications.  Miller had no problem explaining the existence of deity in Finding Darwin's God. Christians don't depend on science for evidence of Yahweh's existence.  After all, there were Christians long before there was science.  The only thing in Christianity that disappears is a literalistic interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis.  But that disappears anyway from internal clues and the theological messages of those stories are not affected at all by evolution.
  

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
lucaspa,




Selection does not increase information.  It cannot be shown to be the source for producing new information. 

Here is the discussion from Dembski:

Dembski  << 1"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing.  The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N).  Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness.  This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious.  Take a simple non-biological example.  If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them.  Here N equals 2 and M equals 1.  The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one.  This is of course as things should be.  Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce.  On the other hand, if both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. " >>

Notice the parts I bolded. Selection increases information by the equation. 

Now, let's look at natural selection and do a some calculations:
Let's look at Darwin's formulation of selection again.

"IF, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; IF there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; THEN, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I THINK IT WOULD BE A MOST EXTRAORDINARY FACT IF NO VARIATION EVER HAD OCCURRED USEFUL TO EACH BEINGS WELFARE, in the same ways so many variations have occurred useful to man. But IF variations useful to any organic being do occur, ASSUREDLY individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized.  This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 1st ed.]

Now, I bolded one of Darwin's "ifs", but this one says that more offspring are produced than those who actually reproduce.  So, let's do some calculations on Dembski's equation looking at these numbers.

1.  In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces.  So we have N = 4 and M = 1.  -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2.  We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation.   Selection does increase information.

2.  Let's take a more radical example.  An antibiotic kills 95% of the population.  So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100.  N = 100, M =5.  -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3.  Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. 

3.  Let's take a less severe example.  A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce.  -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection.  But remember, selection is cumulative.  Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits".  Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve.  Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B.  256: 53-58, 1994.  Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation.  Any fraction always has a negative logarithm.  With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N).  This is obviously not possible.

Please check my calculations, but it seems to me that Dembski has just shown, mathematically, that selection does result in an increase in information.  Not only that, but selection can't do anything else but increase information.
 

 

[XtremeVision]

 

lucaspa, you are amazing man. I can only attribute ignorance to your blatant and laughable dismissal of ICR’s efforts as scientific. The FACT that they duplicate exact experiments of other institutions and major scientific efforts (not just related to evolution directly) shows that you are just wrong and IGNORING OUR CASE. This shows you are predisposed and bias. This also shows you are not interested in an objective means of obtaining the truth. Nothing you’ve said, like morat, hints at a remote understanding of our arguments (or that you even read them despite your vacuous claims). I might as well claim “evolution is wrong and not scientific because we’ve proved it false” without sources, quotes, scientific data as this is essentially what you’ve done (if you say I haven’t I quite because ignorance is just too dominant). Amazing man…just amazing.   

Actually, now that I think about it, this is just sad.  I feel sorry for you.  I'll certainly pray for you.

 

[XtremeVision]

lucaspa, do you realize these are assertions used as premises themselves? Those bolded statements need to be proven themselves. Ever heard of a theorem? You cannot use a “scenario”, or “conclusion” as proof to support the premises. This is impossible for him to do actually, so he assumes and asserts they fit together automatically. This is addressed in my resources as well.

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily incorrect, just it's non sequitur and it DOES NOT show that NATURAL SELECTION DIRECTLY increases information, just that AFTER natural selection, you will always have a result of more information.  These are NOT the same.  One does not need mathematics to conclude this (selecting the most and the best yield more).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

From the ICR,

"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."

In other words, "we believe the Bible first, everything else second". I don't see how this is scientifically honest.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
From the ICR,
"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
In other words, "we believe the Bible first, everything else second". I don't see how this is scientifically honest.

 
This is irrelevant because it has no bearing on actually carrying out (performing) the scientific method to explain physical observations.  The conclusions themselves are not bound by "science", but to get there requires a scientific approach. They can test water’s boiling point just the same as you can.


I believe the scientific approach today to be tailored to fit into evolution (should be other way around), much like you claim we do the same with the Bible. The scientific method is not dependent on the interpretations, but it can be used to derive either one.  We are at somewhat of a disadvantage because it’s already been “accepted” that the observed results of the SM fit to a proposed “theory” rather than objectively carrying out the SM to arrive at the theory.

My resources can elaborate much more concisely of course, this is just a general gander.

 

[XtremeVision]

ICR:
The programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.


While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it. Opposing philosophies are treated extensively and fairly, so that graduates are well equipped in all areas covered by secular institutions, with the supplementary advantage of learning also the rationale for the creationist interpretation of scientific data related to origins and Earth history.

examples:

Field Research. Example: measurements of selected isotopic ratios for 67 elements in Grand Canyon basalts (see Isotope and Trace Element Analysis of Hypersthene-Normative Basalts From the Quaternary of Uinkaret Plateau, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, by Steven A. Austin)

Lab Research. Example: genetic analysis of inheritance of mammalian hair. (See Orthogenesis and Coat Color, and Pattern Inheritance in the Laboratory Rat by Suzanne Buren.)

Educational Research. Example: analysis of textbooks and other teaching materials, development of creationist-based tests, development of instruments for understanding attitudes about creationist tenets. (See Methodology for Analysis of Science Teaching Materials from a Creationist Worldview, by Steve Deckard, Richard L. Overman, Bryan A. Schneck, Candace B. Dixon, and Robert E. Brook, CRSQ June, 1995.)

Exploration. Example: search for Noah's Ark and other archaeological sites and artifacts. (See Adventure on Ararat, by John D. Morris.)

Analytical Research. Example: analytical review of helium concentrations in the atmosphere as an indicator of a young earth. (See The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere; a study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, by Larry Vardiman.)

Literature Research. Example: review and critical analysis of the Kettlewell studies of the English peppered moth. (See A Re-Evaluation of the English Peppered Moth's Use as an Example of Evolution in Progress, by Chris D. Osborne.)

 

How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?
Let me define science.


science: A branch of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments.


Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.
Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. (See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 28.)
Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.


scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.


All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. (See Part II.)


Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject (see page 326) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.


Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. (See Figure 151 on page 317 and the paragraph preceding that figure.) Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 108), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”
Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

 

[XtremeVision]

pete, concerning "design":

Several reviewers have argued against the legitimacy of reasoning to a conclusion of intelligent design based on biochemical evidence.  In the same review discussed above Allen Orr raises an intriguing question of how we apprehend design.  He writes:

'We know that there are people who make things like mousetraps.  (I’m not being facetious here—I’m utterly serious.) When choosing between the design and Darwinian hypotheses, we find design plausible for mousetraps only because we have independent knowledge that there are creatures called humans who construct all variety of mechanical contraptions; if we didn’t, the existence of mousetraps would pose a legitimate scientific problem. (Orr 1997) '


So, Orr says, we know mousetraps are designed because we have seen them being designed by humans, but we have not seen irreducibly complex biochemical systems being designed, so we can’t conclude they were.

Although he makes an interesting point, I think his reasoning is incorrect.  Consider the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), in which scientists scan space for radio waves that might have been sent by aliens.  Those scientists believe that they can distinguish a designed radio wave (one carrying a message) from the background radio noise of space.  However, we have never observed space aliens sending radio messages; we have never observed aliens at all.  Nonetheless, SETI workers, funded for years by the federal government, are confident that they can detect intelligently-designed phenomena, even if they don’t know who produced them.


The relevance to intelligent design in biochemistry is plain. Design is evident in the designed system itself, rather than in pre-knowledge of who the designer is. Even if the designer is an entity quite unlike ourselves, we can still reach a conclusion of design if the designed system has distinguishing traits (such as irreducible complexity) that we know require intelligent arrangement. (One formal analysis of how we come to a conclusion of design is presented by William Dembski in his recent monograph, The Design Inference (Dembski 1998).)

We can probe Orr’s reasoning further by asking how we know that something was intelligently designed even if it indeed resulted from human activity. After all, humans engage in all sorts of activities which we would not ascribe to intelligence. For example, in walking through the woods a person might crush plants by his footsteps, accidentally break tree branches and so on. Why do we not ascribe those marks to purposeful activity? On the other hand, when we see a small snare (made of sticks and vines) in the woods, obviously designed to catch a rabbit, why do we unhesitatingly conclude the parts of the snare were purposely arranged by an intelligent agent? Why do we apprehend purpose in the snare but not in the tracks? As Thomas Reid argued in response to the skepticism of David Hume, intelligence is apprehended only by its effects; we cannot directly observe intelligence. (Dembski 1999) We know humans are intelligent by their outward actions. And we discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent human actions by external evidence. Intelligence, human or not, is evident only in its effects.

Michael Ruse in Boston Review raises another objection, saying that scientists qua scientists simply can’t appeal to design.

'Design is not something you add to science as an equal—miracles or molecules, take your pick. Design is an interpretation which makes some kind of overall metaphysical or theological sense of experience. (Ruse 1997)'


Contrary to Ruse’s argument, however, many scientists already appeal to design. I mentioned the SETI program above; clearly those scientists think they can detect design (and nonhuman design at that.) Forensic scientists routinely make decisions of whether a death was designed (murder) or an accident. Archaeologists decide whether a stone is a designed artifact or just a chance shape. Cryptologists try to distinguish a coded message from random noise. It seems unlikely that any of those scientists view their work as trying to make “metaphysical or theological sense of experience.” They are doing ordinary science.

Ruse probably meant that scientists can’t specifically appeal to God or the supernatural.  Evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma echoes Ruse’s sentiment with rousing rhetoric:

'When scientists invoke miracles, they cease to practice science . . . . Behe, claiming a miracle in every molecule, would urge us to admit the defeat of reason, to despair of understanding, to rest content in ignorance.  Even as biology daily grows in knowledge and insight, Behe counsels us to just give up. (Futuyma 1997)'


In speaking of “miracles”—relying for rhetorical effect on that word’s pejorative connotations when used in a scientific context—Ruse and Futuyma are ascribing to me a position I was scrupulous in my book to avoid.  Although I acknowledged that most people (including myself) will attribute the design to God—based in part on other, non-scientific judgments they have made—I did not claim that the biochemical evidence leads ineluctably to a conclusion about who the designer is.  In fact, I directly said that, from a scientific point of view, the question remains open. (Behe 1996, 245-250)  In doing so I was not being coy, but only limiting my claims to what I think the evidence will support.  To illustrate, Francis Crick has famously suggested that life on earth may have been deliberately seeded by space aliens (Crick and Orgel 1973).  If Crick said he thought that the clotting cascade was designed by aliens, I could not point to a biochemical feature of that system to show he was wrong.  The biochemical evidence strongly indicates design, but does not show who the designer was.

I should add that, even if one does think the designer is God, subscribing to a theory of intelligent design does not necessarily commit one to “miracles.” At least no more than thinking that the laws of nature were designed by God—a view, as we’ve seen, condoned by the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences 1999).  In either case one could hold that the information for the subsequent unfolding of life was present at the very start of the universe, with no subsequent “intervention” required from outside of nature.  In one case, the information is present just in general laws.  In the other case, in addition to general laws, information is present in other factors too.  The difference might boil down simply to the question of whether there was more or less explicit design information present at the beginning—hardly a point of principle.

While we’re on the subject of God, another point should be made:  A number of prominent scientists, some of whom fault me for suggesting design, have themselves argued for atheistic conclusions based on biological data.  For example, Professor Futuyma has written:  “Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms—but this seems to be the message of evolution.” (Futuyma 1982) And Russell Doolittle remarks concerning the blood clotting cascade:  “. . . no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system.” (Doolittle 1997) It is rather disingenuous, however, for those who use biological data to argue that life shows no evidence of design, to complain when others use biological evidence to argue the opposing view. 

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by blader
XtremeVision:
I've asked you to defend your view that no possible change can ever increase the genetic information of an organism three times now. You have not done so and have instead ignored my posts. I have read through your posts and no where have you defended that view that no possible change in an organism can ever increase genetic information. I ask you to either show me evidence to this effect in your previous posts, provide evidence, or retract your statement. Thank you.

BTW: To reemphasize that my goalpost has not moved.  You decided to interprit incorrectly and to "divide" up my statement to make it look weaker.  It's not 3 independent sub-clauses , but a grouping  (I continued to elaborate). But we've cleared this up anyway since then.

Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in genetic information (DNA, etc), proliferation as a result of mutations, more complex life forms from simple ones, show how a mechanism of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims, etc.  Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".

 

 

[XtremeVision]

Morat, no need to make a huge response right now until you have agreed to my conditional. I suspect I'll be seeing an ensuing response filled with the same vacuous clatter as before.

 

[Morat]

  I'm not planning on making a response at all until you figure out what that *WOOOSHING* noise was in the last post you made to me.

   Perhaps it was the sound of something flying over your head, very fast, hmm?

 

 

[chickenman]

xtreme vision, you still haven't explained why my example cannot produce sufficient "new information"

 

[blader]

Originally posted by blader
XtremeVision:
I've asked you to defend your view that no possible change can ever increase the genetic information of an organism three times now. You have not done so and have instead ignored my posts. I have read through your posts and no where have you defended that view that no possible change in an organism can ever increase genetic information. I ask you to either show me evidence to this effect in your previous posts, provide evidence, or retract your statement. Thank you.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
BTW: To reemphasize that my goalpost has not moved.  You decided to interprit incorrectly and to "divide" up my statement to make it look weaker.  It's not 3 independent sub-clauses , but a grouping  (I continued to elaborate). But we've cleared this up anyway since then.

 

I never said there was 3 independent sub clauses. What are you talking about? Are you even following along? I did not divide your statements to make it look weaker. I'm quoting you word for word here.

What I asked for is a hypothetical example of any change that could increase genetic information. When you failed to provide any, you replied that: "Well Occam's razor would imply that it doesn't exist."
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=419927#post419927

I then asked you repeatedly to provide evidence towards your claim that no change in an organism can ever increase genetic information, to which you repeatedly ignored and now reply with this apparent non sequiter that does nothing to support your claim.

 

[lucaspa]

No, you went off on your own tangent not really addressing the crucial issues they were arguing, did some hand waving and declared it as a refutation.

You wanted data showing how mutations increased information and complexity.  I gave you those.  You haven't addressed them except for this duck right here.

There are dozens of papers in the scientific literature documenting the emergence of novel traits and abilities via mutation.  These qualify for your intuitive approach to "increased information" and "complexity" because they do give what you say evolution lacks: new traits and abilities.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision I was trying to point out that this isn't what is advertised and taught

This you need to document. Where and how frequently is evolution taught as atheism?

that people seem to think otherwise. 

This doesn't hold, because many posters here have told you that evolution is not an ideology.

So I treat it as ideology, incorporating the two.

We understand that this is what you do. The question is: Is what you are doing valid?  Is evolution really atheism?

Another question is: When William Provine, Peter Atkins, and Richard Dawkins equate evolution and atheism, are they  accurately representing evolution?

There is grave danger to Christianity incorporate evolution as part of atheism.  First, to do so you have to accept the major statement of faith of atheism.  Why any Christian would want to do that is beyond me, but creationists do it all the time.  Second, if you set up the conflict as Christianity or theism vs evolution, Christianity will inevitably lose and evolution win.  The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming and apparent to anyone who looks at it.  If you insist on incorporating evolution into atheism, this inevitably means that atheism wins.

Now, I can't stop you from making the mistake you're making. What I can do is see that your mistake is not fatal to Christianity by keeping your mistake to just you and not let anyone else join you in your folly.
  

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision

ICR:
The programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.


While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it.

This doesn't work because of the ICR oath:

""(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs.  To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.  (2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made bydirect creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis.  Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.  (3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, world-wide in its extent and effect. "

This is the second worst "crime" in science.  This oath says that data must fit theory.  Anything found by doing "science" must suport a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, including separate "kinds" and a world-wide Flood.  No possible data can contradict this theory.  THis is emphatically not science as practised by Newton, Boyle, etc.

The only worse crime in science is fabricating data. And creation scientists such as Gentry and Austin have also been guilty of this.