Yes, very interesting.
We keep arguing about issues like "randomness" as opposed to "design." This is what this interview is about. This movie is really about the most basic creationist tenent, which is hardly even a theological concept. It is simple randomness versus some unattributed initiation of a design, be it Atum, Apsu/Tiamat, Little Green Men or YHWH.
Randomness is the only alternative to a supernatural creation:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin's On the Origin of Species)
That is the whole Darwinian argument, that is what he wanted to accomplish and all Darwinians are doing. They don't care about science, they only care about squashing religious worldviews.
Let's look at the evolutionist logic:
1. Here is monkey DNA and people DNA and the morphology that goes along with it.
We now know that the differences are far greater then can be explained by any genetic mechanism. They will tell you it's natural selection or evolution which is pure circular reasoning. Natural selection acts on existing changes and evolution is an overall process. What they should be looking for is a genetic mechanism but when they have chance and natural selection it becomes a catchall for every unanswered question.
2. The best model that fits the CURENT data is evolutionary change in DNA, whether random or "self-organized." The extremely long odds for such processes being anything but design are irrelevant.
There is no way that DNA or RNA organized at random and evolutionists know this. There are also a ton of problems with the Cambrian Explosion and the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. I don't expect anyone to have all of the answers but they should have some of the fundamental ones.
3. The cause of the DNA/morphology in the first place is irrelevant to the question of whether the theory fits the data best.
For a theory to be valid it has to be subjected to systematic testing. When the vital demonstration is achieved then and only then can it be considered valid. That is why Darwinism is just an assumption, not a conclusion.
We keep hearing the argument that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. That is a garbage argument. Now, clearly they are different. But, "nothing to do with" is a bunch of nonsense.
It does have nothing to do with evolution as science, it has a lot to do with their a priori assumptions.
If we look at the odds of what is happening, we are looking at power. Going back to the Altenburg debate, that feller, Kaufman was talking about the complexity of enzymes as his impetus for "reinventing the sacred" and for discussions of things like "self-organizing."
http://christianforums.com/t6985420-an-unfortunate-relapse-more-dissent-from-darwin.html
Quote:
But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.
There are less then 20,000 protein coding genes and I'm not sure how many functional parts of the genome exist. The genes being turned on and off is something that makes a lot more then naturally selected mutations. Gene expression is another factor and all of these process come from prexisting information in the genes and other parts of the genome.
Here's what he told me over the phone:
"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm
Not really, this is something I realized early in my experiences on the topic of Creationism.
But, to help us think, lets simply look at the notion of "power" -- as in, enough power to orgnaize enzymes where the chances of success are 1 in 10 to the power of 7K or something like that.
They have to be organized with a high degree of specificity.
Now the evolutionist notion is that the "power" involved here is neatly compartmentalized. In other words, yes, that is one heck of a power in that it exceeds all that we can hope for or imagine, but one thing we know for sure, it certainly couldn't have been interrupting evolutionary (if not random) processes for at least the last 3 billion years.
Evolution did nothing for 3 billion years and the highest forms of life would have been bacteria and fauna. Then suddenly every major phylum appears in the fossil record without precursors.
In short, the abiogenesis problem is the evolutionary problem, even though the mechanics postulated for either event are quite dissimilar. The logical problem exists in both fields. It is the origins problem. While we may not have a model of origins, we do know for a fact beyond all reasonable challenge that all origins processes must have been enormously powerful because they are so enormously unlikely.
Abiogenesis is a slam dunk for Creationism, there is no doubt in my mind. Radiometric dating is another line of evidence I cannot take seriously. My view is that it is genetics that will finally decide this issue. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about:
Intelligent Design 101: Casey Luskin on Human Chromosomal Fusion
They are pushing this chromosome fusion but don't want people to realize that there are far more then 1 chromosomal rearrangements, there are at least 7.
At Least 7 Major Pericentric Inversions larger then 10MB that range in size between 16 and 77 Mb:
Contrary to previous findings for this pair of species, we show that genes located in the rearranged chromosomes that differentiate the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, especially genes within rearrangements themselves, present lower divergence than genes elsewhere in the genome. Still, there are considerable differences between individual chromosomes. Chromosome 4, in particular, presents higher divergence in genes located within its rearrangement.
Genome Biology 30 October 2007
I really wish you were more interested in genetics, I know you could do a lot with the latest research.
Frankly, I think it is ignorant or deceptive to state that any process is neatly confined and separate from an origins cause by the mere fact that the process itself currently in operation seems to be in evidence. We have established that enormous power exists. It must be a variable in EVERY equation.
Now what do we have:
1. The integrity of our "knowledge" of how things are made in evolutionary theory if we have the wildcard of "power" as a factor. Can anyone think of a Psalm that sounds very much liks this particular epistemological problem?
Not off hand but Proverbs definitely does.
To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:2-7)
2. How do we teach about this "power?" Is there any science that can meet the criteria for "science" as it is so restrictively definied by TEs on this board? How can we not teach about this issue? How can we not get into the very long odds? How can the mention of "God" possibly affect whether we are infringing upon some essential principles either of science or law once are dealing with an acknolwedged cipher.
They simply don't do that, they only want arguments they are not interested in statistical probability. In my debate with Loudmouth he repeatedly used outdated and bogus statistics to argue that ERVs are evidence of common ancestry. He took the probability argument straight from Talk Origins and when faced with current research he could not address the probability of the inverse logic.
This is what I'm talking about:
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006).
The most abundant family of ERVs, with more then 100 members are not found in the human genome. This turkey of an argument has made the rounds and when you actually look at the facts you find it argues strongly against common descent.
This discussion probably belongs in OT.
I prefer to have this discussion here, I am really tired of the TE perspective on this. A typical evolutionist does not bother me but when they start attacking Christian theology based on evolution it makes my skin crawl.
Oh wait, you are not barred from opening a thread in OT! How non-delicious. 
