If evolutionary theory is so wrong then why is it used?

pmh1nic said:

Again, as far as I've learned in this thread none of you have taken the time to read anything other books that support evolution and maybe a review or summary of a book that provides some of the counter arguments to the theory. I'd recommend reading Behe's book (biochemist with Ph.D creditials). He doesn't approach the subject in a dogmatic way..

Click to expand...

Does Behe say that any of the mechanisms used in the explainations of evolutionary theory violate the second law of thermodynamics? If he does, which mechanism?

pmh1nic said:

"Slow down there, cowboy. Don't presume to speak to my intentions, beliefs, faith or motives....Further, keeping emotional reactions and personal judgements of others out of these discussions..."

No emotional reaction, presumptions or judgements on my part. But when you're repeatly asked the same question after giving the answer repeatly it seems a waste of energy to keep repeating it.

Click to expand...

Problem is, I only asked you one time here. You are bluring facts with frustration, lumping multiple members together, forgetting who said what, in a kind of frantic scurry.

I'll ask you again, (the first repeated request from me), please tell me what post number(s) you are refering to, when you say you have listed some serioius conflicts between evolution and physics.

Please. Just give me the post number(s), and you won't hear this request again, (at least not from me).

Nevermind.

I have started another thread, dedicated specifically to the discussion of conflicts between evolution and physics.

http://www.christianforums.com/t70778

pmh1nic said:

"Where was the SLoT broken? That is evolution."
"No-one told you that organisms do not evolve."

Your example is not an example of evolution it's an example of adaptation within a species.

Click to expand...

And what process does "evolution" as you understand it (hint - every evolutionary biologist under the sun would call my example evolution) require that my example does not?

But why start with a complex organism. Within that bacteria

Click to expand...

Bacteria is plural. Sorry, I'm pedantic, but it bugs me.

is a extremely complex genetic system. Explain to me how that system came into being from hydrogen.

Click to expand...

We don't know it all. There is a gap in our knowledge. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with insisting it's unfillable and throwing our hands up in the air and saying, "Oh, Goddidit", as if the "who" question answered the "how" question. I don't understand the philosophical need to posit a miracle to fill this particular gap. Since God used natural processes (evolution) to create biodiversity, it makes more philosophical sense to me that He did so to create life in the first place.

There are simpler replicators - prions, viruses. Personally, I think viruses are latecomers - dependant upon higher organisms, but I could be wrong. If you really want to know the latest thinking on these subjects I suggest reading the appropriate peer-reviewed literature rather than coming on here. Abiogenesis isn't a field that particularly fascinates me, to be honest. I'm still the geeky dinosaur obsessive I was when I was a kid.

"First off, in the human population, we all are walking around with many neutral mutations. The claim that only rarely are mutations neutral is complete bunk."

Click to expand...

But evolution says those mutations result not just neutrality but a higher order and complexity. Where's the evidence? To say that we exist is evidence that this took place is a matter of faith on the part of the evolutionist.

Click to expand...

No, our existence is evidence that most mutations are neutral. There is more specific proof of beneficial mutations here, for example: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

But what is "beneficial" and what is "deleterious" is not always set in stone anyway. If you live in a tree, a mutation that makes you a closer green to the leaves is a beneficial one. If you live in the leaf mould, it might be a complete downer. Is there some mechanism that only allows such a mutation in leaf mould dwellers?

"No, it isn't. It is God of the Gaps. "We can't explain this with a natural explanation so Goddidit".

Or maybe it's we recognize the tremendous order to the working of the universe, the incredible complexity of life but rather than accept and investigate the possibility of an Intelligent Designer (or in the hope there isn't one) we'll pieces together facts and mix it with supposition to say that it's just a matter of time and the random clashing of atoms.

Click to expand...

I've already addressed your "random clashing of atoms" strawman elsewhere. That you repeat it is telling.

Again, as far as I've learned in this thread none of you have taken the time to read anything other books that support evolution and maybe a review or summary of a book that provides some of the counter arguments to the theory.

Click to expand...

Wrong

I'd recommend reading Behe's book (biochemist with Ph.D creditials). He doesn't approach the subject in a dogmatic way.

Click to expand...

And you know I haven't read it how? You do know that Behe accepts evolution, don't you? As far as I'm concerned he is a theistic evolutionist. He just toploads the process. It's not necessary, but he does it anyway. Personally, I think it makes for a Deistic concept of God, but whatever.

The onus is on evolutions to provide the evidence that this all happened by random chance. There is a given order in the universe (why?). Physics and chemistry are the study of the order in the physical universe. Even with our vast understand of the properties of matter there is a grand mystery regarding how these properties of physics and chemistry come together to produce this vastly complex and intriquing "thing" we call life. The more we learn about life the complex we discover it is and appreciate the forces that work against it having happened by random chance (including the Law of Thermodynamics and increased enthropy), things Darwin didn't have a clue about when he wrote Origin of Species.

Click to expand...

That's wrong. In 1834 Clapeyron formulated the first version of the SLoT, and it was verbally formulated in 1850 by Clausius. Thomson formally derived essentially the current version in 1851. The gist was well known in Darwin's day. Entropy was a concept developed by Clausius in 1865, but the concept it formally embodied was well known. But this is irrelevant, as you have conspicuously failed to demonstrate any natural process required by evolution that contradicts the SLoT anyway.

The more we fold back the onion skin the more complex things seem to get becoming IMHO a stronger argument against it (life) having taken place as a result of random chance.

Click to expand...

Who said it was random chance? Last I knew there were laws of physics that governed this sort of thing. You repeat "random chance" throughout your posts, as if everything occurs by "random chance" or by the direct action of God.

"1. But evolution does not state it happens by random chance."
Evolutions says that through the forces present in the physically world (chemical, nuclear, gravitational, electrical)matter organized itself into more complex forms that eventually resulted in living things and those living things continued to interact, evolve, adapt into more complex living things with the end result being man.

But the more we understand the complexities of biological life the mere interaction of those forces alone do not account for the presence of life.

What do I mean? You can take all the material in a human being (water, carbon, calcium, iron, zinc, etc., etc.) in the exact proportions found in the average human being, mix it up, expose it to heat, light, electricity, shake it, bake it for a billion years and it is mere speculation that the end result is going to be life let alone human life.

It's my understand that even given all we know about the interaction of matter it does not account for why life exist on this planet. The understanding of how matter interacts and the forces that bring about those interactions don't account for the complexities of living organisms. Believing that life sprung from these interactions is a matter of faith.

We understand the composition of DNA and it's structure. We understand the interaction of the materials that make up DNA. But it is shear guesswork and faith to say that these materials by the natural forces that cause them to interact ordered themselves in the particular structure that we know as DNA. To my knowledge there is no science that explains why these molecules have arranged themself in such a way.

When we see a complicated arrangement of material that performs a specific function it seems self-evident that a designer organized the materials in such a way as to perform that function. Either that or it happened by the forces inheritent in the material and time to interact. You might say that's physics at work. I say that's random chance.

"2. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution."
No I'm not. Evolutionary theory is an extension of abiogenesis with a different starting point. How is concept of "star stuff" to complex amino acids any different from an ameoba to man?

"3. I think you should check out the following, from a Christian, on entropy and the second law:"
I'm going to take some time to really read and think about what is posted on this site. But having done a quick review I think there is one criticial point that is missed in that discussion having to do with entropy and order/disorder. The issue isn't simply a matter of the ordering of atoms and molecules and how one might define complexity. It's also a matter of ordering that produces or results in complex function. And it isn't explained and goes beyond just a recognition that a particular group of marbles happens to look like the letter "H".

notto

I'm not sure if he touched on it directly (loaned my copy to a biochemistry student). Read the book it won't hurt .

Karl
"every evolutionary biologist under the sun would call my example evolution"

Of course they would.

"We don't know it all. There is a gap in our knowledge."

How about a chasm. So it's a matter of faith for you.

"I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with insisting it's unfillable and throwing our hands up in the air and saying, "Oh, Goddidit""

Scientific evidence isn't the only type of evidence. And just as legal/historical evidence is only as valid as the accuracy of its observers and the transmitters of that evidence, scientific evidence is only as good as the instruments used analyze and observe, the perception and the observers ability to understand what he is observing, and his ability to put the observations in there proper context.

"No, our existence is evidence that most mutations are neutral"

Your presumption. Actually our present state of being might be the evidence that most mutations are detrimental.

"And you know I haven't read it how?"

Don't be coy. If you've read it just say you did and I'll apologize and say I was wrong.

"You do know that Behe accepts evolution, don't you?"

Since you and I don't agree on what the term evolution means I'm not sure I can answer that question. But if by evolution you mean "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) I don't think he does.

"That's wrong. In 1834 Clapeyron formulated the first version of the SLoT, and it was verbally formulated in 1850 by Clausius. Thomson formally derived essentially the current version in 1851. The gist was well known in Darwin's day. Entropy was a concept developed by Clausius in 1865"

Let's get out of the 1800's into at least the 20th century.

"the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I realize the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the original and strict sense deals with energy but the applications to complexity in other systems including biological is valid.

"Who said it was random chance? Last I knew there were laws of physics that governed this sort of thing."

I responded to this in post 23.

You are making some very common misconceptions about evolution as a scientific theory. First of all, here is what Talk.Origins says about the idea of "progress":

"Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock. "

So, to the extent that it is beneficial for an organism ot become more complex, it can and will, but this is not the "goal" of the process or always the end result.

Second, your "can't get there from here" analogy is also looking at it from the wrong perspective. Yes, the odds of a particular organism we see today having developed has extremely low odds. But that only means that if we asked the process to created that very organism again over the entire process of evolution, it almost assuredly would not happen. That is looking at it from "this end", assuming that this end product was the goal. But if you start on the "front end" and just let the process work, it can create all kinds of things. You could then take these organisms and say "wow, what are the odds of THAT happening!", etc, on and on. The odds of the evolutionary process, starting from the beginning, creating a massive variety of simple and complex organisms is actually 100%. Creating again a specific creature we see today is very, very low.

Having said that, environmental pressures will tend to produce creatures that fit the environment, so if we pressed the reset button, we would see some similarities early on, but soon it would look VERY different.

To the extent God wanted Man to come out a certain way, however, He could tweak it all He liked to arrive at that goal.

Vance

"Evolution is not progress."

Evolutionist claim that the process by which human beings came into existence is the process of adaptation starting with single cell organisms. When you use the words "beneficial" or term "more complex" to describe the changes that allow for these organisms to reap the benefit of those changes it is progress according to the standard definition of the word (i.e. gradual better, M-W).

"Second, your "can't get there from here" analogy is also looking at it from the wrong perspective."

What I do know is that I'm here and I'm not convinced that science has the answer for how I got here. I do believe (because it's been proven by scientific observation) that species have the ability to adapt to environment. But I don't believe that it has been shown with a high level of confidence that species (whether we're talking about bacteria or dogs) have the ability to adapt and change to the extent that what was bacteria 100 million years ago is a dog today.

The validity of the Genesis account of creation, how much or how little should be taken literial, the validity of the Bible as a record of God's interaction with man and how this causes one (even those that say they are scientist without any bias) to view the evidence on both sides is also an interesting discussion.

It's bothersome to me that some (not you necessarily) will total discount the well educated, well informed opinions (based on their understanding and review of scientific evidence) of someone like Behe on the basis that he believes in special creation or intelligent design, as if absolutely no bias could possibly exist on the other side.

Anyway, as dogmatic as I may come off at times I confess my views on this subject are not total based in my limited understand of hard science. But that's a whole other story.

Correct, there has been a lot of development which is more complex than earlier forms, and even when they become less complex in order to fit their surroundings, they are still becoming *more* fit. So, yes, this could be called progress by one definition. But suddenly an environment may change, and now the population has problems and must adapt again or become extinct. My point is that growth toward complexity and an philosophical concept of "progress" is not part evolution. There is no thought that "evolution makes things better in the world". There are no value judgments about whether "fitter" is better.

And you are also right that science can not tell us everything about how you got here, and does not pretend to. Evolution does not predict how life got started, only how it likely developed. And yes, once we get past the fossil record, science must speculate based on what we know so far, about how things happened going on back toward the initiation of life. What science CAN tell us is that the mechanism for evolution works: the change in a gene pool over time leading to change. We have VERY strong evidence for the common descent of life going back for billions of years (before it gets to that more speculative period I mentioned above). What would be needed would be an explanation of why micro-evolutionary changes would not add up, given enough time and sufficient pressures, to macro-evolutionary changes. The processes would seem, by all logic, to produce AS MUCH change as would be beneficial to maximize the ability for a population to thrive in a given environment. So far, no one has been able to provide an adequate explanation of a "brake" in the process to prevent such large changes. We have even seen new species develop in our own lifetime.

Yes, there are still a lot of gaps to fill, but even what we have today is sufficient for most Christians to say that it is more likely that our traditional interpretation of Scripture is wrong. My point, even for those who believe the evidence is not yet strong enough to consider alternative interpretations, is that Young Earth Creationists should NOT continue to state that a disbelief in a young earth and/or a belief in evolution equals a disbelief in Scripture. This is VERY dangerous to the true Christian message for very obvious reasons. I wouldn't even be bothering with this debate if it was not for this danger.

moved post to the correct thread.

"What science CAN tell us is that the mechanism for evolution works: the change in a gene pool over time leading to change."

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that genetic changes do occur in a population.

"We have VERY strong evidence for the comment descent of life going back for billions of years (before it gets to that more speculative period I mentioned above)."

Here is where there is some controversy. The common genetic traits are viewed by some as evidence of a common ancestry and proof that macro-evolution change took place. But why? Couldn't it be that the commonality is a result of an intelligent designer sticking with a particular design that "works" rather than a completely different design for every living thing?

"What would be needed would be an explanation of why micro-evolutionary changes would not add up, given enough time, to macro-evolutionary changes."

I've read some information on the probablities of evolution by those that have an expertise in science and mathematics that say based on those calculations alone evolution is very unlikely (essentially impossible) to be the answer regarding origins.

But here is my viewpoint (and dilimma) as a laymen who doesn't have the ability or knowledge to challenge either side regarding their view of the science:

1. I don't totally discount the claims of scientist, some with impressive credentials, that the process of evolution does not provide a plausible answers for how we got here. They all can't be intellectually dishonest, religious fanatics. They may be in the minority but the minority has on more than a few occassions shown to be correct.

2. To my knowledge and from what I've read the fossil record is incomplete to "prove" that micro-evolution produced macro-evolutionary change.

3. If macro-evolution took place has it stopped, why has it stopped and if it hasn't stopped where are the examples of it today? Showing examples of micro-evolutionary changes as a claim that macro-evolution takes place doesn't seem to me to be sufficient. If the micro-evolution takes place with burst of macro-evolutionary changes following why aren't they observed today?

One last point has to do with scriptural interpretation:
"that our traditional interpretation of Scripture is wrong than the evidence we see around us"

I've read different theological opinions regarding the creation story, from C.H. Pember's gap to the literal six day creation account. While I don't base my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior on which version is correct we need to be very careful in tranlating and interpreting the Bible on the basis of how well it fits the science of today. Theories change, what was thought to be cold, hard fact one day is shown to be error the next. Science only deals in the physical and God is Spirit. In fact the Bible express the thought that reality is in the Spiritual realm. He is the God that creates something out of nothing (that might be tough to prove scientifically ).

Now some scientist would deny the existance of anything that can't be measured, physically observed at will and tested in the lab. If the Bible is the Word of God then there is a vast realm of existance that science is ignorant of or refuses to acknowledge and denies the potential effect it might have on the physical realm. Did Jesus walk on water? To my knowledge it can't be explained by the physics we know today.

Science limits itself to the natural, God deals in the natural and supernatural.

pmh1nic said:

It's bothersome to me that some (not you necessarily) will total discount the well educated, well informed opinions (based on their understanding and review of scientific evidence) of someone like Behe on the basis that he believes in special creation or intelligent design, as if absolutely no bias could possibly exist on the other side.

Click to expand...

Behe's work is discredited because there is research and findings in primary research that he obviously did not take the time to read or research before coming to his conclusions. Behe did not do any research or field work or lab work related to ID when he wrote his book. His book was not peer reviewed, it was not researched, and it was not published as a scientific work. Any book on evolution based on this same type of researh method would be rejected by mainstream scientists for the same reasons (and they are).

Behe went out and found evidence for what he wanted to show. What he avoided was the work of others that falsified his conclusions. Easy to do when publishing a book directly to the pubic, but to regard his work as scientific would be incorrect. He did not follow the standard process and he has not revised his work based on any new findings.

His book has as much validity as a source for a scientific discussion and is based on as valid of a research model as your average UFO book, holacost denial book, or your average creationist source.

Why does his book or his findings have any validity? Did he present a model for scientific investigation of ID? Mainstream science has been waiting for this from ANY ID 'researcher' and yet it is not forthcoming.

Notto

My initial question to you is, did you determine the following "facts" based on your own reading of his book and your own independent research?

1. Behe's "research and findings in primary research that he obviously did not take the time to read or research before coming to his conclusions"

2. "Behe did not do any research or field work or lab work related to ID when he wrote his book"

3. "Behe went out and found evidence for what he wanted to show."

"His book has as much validity as a source for a scientific discussion and is based on as valid of a research model as your average UFO book, holacost denial book, or your average creationist source."

I'd also be interested in your professional credentials that put you in a position to discount the work of a Ph.D biochemist. BTW, Professor of Biological Anthropology, Braxton Alfred of the University of British Columbia seems to disagree with you:

"Darwin's Black Box is an extraordinary piece of work that will come to be regarded as one of the most important books ever written about Darwinian theory."

I guess he's a quack too.

One other issue:

"Why does his book or his findings have any validity? Did he present a model for scientific investigation of ID?"

The more I delve into this issue the more I wonder how much bias there is in the scientific community and resistance to any possible answer that isn't based in physics and biochemistry as the answer for origins. Actually that may be the very definition of science, only what can be measured, weighted, observed at will can possibly have a bearing on what we see in the physical world. That thought is probably scary to some.

Vance had said:
"What science CAN tell us is that the mechanism for evolution works: the change in a gene pool over time leading to change."

pmh1nic replied:
There doesn't seem to be any doubt that genetic changes do occur in a population. "We have VERY strong evidence for the comment descent of life going back for billions of years (before it gets to that more speculative period I mentioned above)." Here is where there is some controversy. The common genetic traits are viewed by some as evidence of a common ancestry and proof that macro-evolution change took place. But why? Couldn't it be that the commonality is a result of an intelligent designer sticking with a particular design that "works" rather than a completely different design for every living thing?

Vance now replies:

But that is just it, we don’t just have simple commonality. We have a wide variety of designs for the same function in many cases (wings, for example) and often see many functions for a similar form (such as the numerous uses to which spiders put their webs). This is EXACTLY what we would expect from evolved creatures, but not really what we would expect if all were simply the result of common design. Now, I believe we DO have a designer, God created everything on this earth. And yes, He had a plan and a design. But the evidence is VERY strong that He let evolutionary forces take their natural course (although He knew what that course would be, being God and all). Further, we do not just have commonality, ee have evidence of progressive modification over time to arrive at the current commonality.

"What would be needed would be an explanation of why micro-evolutionary changes would not add up, given enough time, to macro-evolutionary changes."

I've read some information on the probablities of evolution by those that have an expertise in science and mathematics that say based on those calculations alone evolution is very unlikely (essentially impossible) to be the answer regarding origins.





But those old watch and 747 analogies have it all backwards. They look at a given species alive today and calculate what the odds are of THAT particular species coming into being via the evolutionary processes. In essence, what they are calculating is the odds, if you pressed the "reset" button, for that same species to evolve AGAIN in exactly the same way. But this is backwards. Instead, you have to look at it from the front end and see that just allowing the evolutionary process to take place over enough time and with enough pressures, a wide variety of complex and simple species will come to be. The odds of complex species resulting is actually not low at all, it is near 100%! It would just not be that same species.

But here is my viewpoint (and dilimma) as a laymen who doesn't have the ability or knowledge to challenge either side regarding their view of the science: 1. I don't totally discount the claims of scientist, some with impressive credentials, that the process of evolution does not provide a plausible answers for how we got here. They all can't be intellectually dishonest, religious fanatics. They may be in the minority but the minority has on more than a few occassions shown to be correct.
The problem is that you can not name more than a few (if any) who are not also believers in special creation for religious reasons. While it is speculation to say that their religious beliefs have influenced their approach to the evidence, the odds of this are very good. Also, it is not even a minority. Right now less that 0.15% of the scientist in the relevant fields accept Creationist teachings of origins. So, whenever you get a large enough number, you are bound to have *some* who believe differently, but the statistics show that they are even in the tiny minority of CHRISTIAN scientists in these fields (assuming that even 5 to 10% of them are Christian).

2. To my knowledge and from what I've read the fossil record is incomplete to "prove" that micro-evolution produced macro-evolutionary change.
Well, I would disagree, having reviewed a lot of it. Not only is it more than sufficient for me as it is, it is growing every month! Even without any fossil record, the evidence of common descent is amazingly clear to me. I was just reading the other day in one of my daughter’s reading books that Manatees have embedded toenails which can serve no purpose whatsoever, but which, combined with vestigal rear leg and feet bones, indicate that it evolved from a species that had rear feet. When I looked into it more, there are very clear indications that elephants and manatees evolved from a common ancestor. And this is just one minor example of hundreds and hundreds.

3. If macro-evolution took place has it stopped, why has it stopped and if it hasn't stopped where are the examples of it today? Showing examples of micro-evolutionary changes as a claim that macro-evolution takes place doesn't seem to me to be sufficient. If the micro-evolution takes place with burst of macro-evolutionary changes following why aren't they observed today?
No, there is no "burst" of anything in evolution. Macro is simply enough micros to, well, make a macro change. It just keeps going until the particular species so well fits its environment that there is no pressure to further adapt. So, macro is happening all around us all the time, one little micro at a time. Since macro changes happen on MACRO time scales, we would never expect to see macro changes in a lifetime or a combination of lifetimes. We have seen speciation occur, though.

One last point has to do with scriptural interpretation: "that our traditional interpretation of Scripture is wrong than the evidence we see around us" I've read different theological opinions regarding the creation story, from C.H. Pember's gap to the literal six day creation account. While I don't base my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior on which version is correct we need to be very careful in tranlating and interpreting the Bible on the basis of how well it fits the science of today. Theories change, what was thought to be cold, hard fact one day is shown to be error the next. Science only deals in the physical and God is Spirit. In fact the Bible express the thought that reality is in the Spiritual realm. He is the God that creates something out of nothing (that might be tough to prove scientifically ).

Well, I agree completely that science can do nothing to explain the spiritual aspects of anything. And, so I would never based a spiritual belief on a scientific conclusion. I base my spiritual beliefs on the truths expressed in God’s Word. These truths do not change based on which interpretation of Genesis I think is more likely correct. Ironically, the problem you describe is the problem that Young Earth Creationists have. They use their interpretation of what are spiritual messages to dictate their beliefs about natural events.

Still, I do think it is entirely proper to allow our knowledge of God’s Creation to inform how we interpret Scripture, just as we eventually did with geocentrism, especially when the matter is not a salvation issue.





Now some scientist would deny the existance of anything that can't be measured, physically observed at will and tested in the lab. If the Bible is the Word of God then there is a vast realm of existance that science is ignorant of or refuses to acknowledge and denies the potential effect it might have on the physical realm. Did Jesus walk on water? To my knowledge it can't be explained by the physics we know today. Science limits itself to the natural, God deals in the natural and supernatural.




Exactly, and scientists know this. Science does not say that Jesus could not have walked on the water. It does not say that the virgin birth could not have taken place or that the resurrection was impossible. It does not attempt to refute supernatural events. All science can say is that these events could not happen in the natural. Period. Science can go no further.

But, when there is physical evidence that a particular event did NOT happen, such as with the flood, or with a creation 6,000 years ago, then it will state that fact. Not on the grounds that such supernatural events are not possible, but on the grounds that there is evidence that they did not happen.

Now, you are right, though, that many people, including scientists (since they are people) deny the existence of anything they can not observe. But that is not because they are scientists, but because they are atheists. The two are not the same.

pmh1nic said:

The more I delve into this issue the more I wonder how much bias there is in the scientific community and resistance to any possible answer that isn't based in physics and biochemistry as the answer for origins. Actually that may be the very definition of science, only what can be measured, weighted, observed at will can possibly have a bearing on what we see in the physical world. That thought is probably scary to some.

Click to expand...

The only thing biaased about the 'scientific community' is that they expect science to be backed by research, data, and models of investigation. Behe has not presented this related to ID. The 'scientific community' has been waiting for ID proponents to do this but it is not forthcoming.

I already said that I haven't read his book. His book was written and published by the popular press, not as a scientific work. He has not revised it since it was published to acount for new research (and he apparently did a poor job of research in preparing it because many of his main point were refuted in existing research even before it was published). His book was outdated the minute it hit the shelves.

Does Behe mention any of his own research in the book? Does any of Behe's own reasearch or lab work validate ID? Where has he published this research?

Behe told you in his book what you wanted to hear. He avoided telling you what you did not want to hear.

By the way, Behe and the other ID guys are pretty ticked at Denton (previously their shining light, who wrote Evolution, a Theory in Crisis) since in his newest book he accepts evolution, both micro and macro, as part of the "design". He still believes that God is the designer, and that the universe shows tons of proofs that it was particularly designed to be a home for humans, but that this design included evolution.

They had a round table discussion complaining about him, while having to give grudging admiration for the scholarship of the new book.

"But that is just it, we don’t just have simple commonality. We have a wide variety of designs for the same function in many cases (wings, for example) and often see many functions for a similar form"

When I spoke of commonality I was speaking of commonality on the genetic level not a functional level as in wings that enable flight.

"allowing the evolutionary process to take place over enough time and with enough pressures, a wide variety of complex and simple species will come to be"

That's an assumption giving evolution the nod that it is the answer for origins. On the contrary, the place to start that is closest to neutral ground is what we know has come into being.

"The problem is that you can not name more than a few (if any) who are not also believers in special creation for religious reasons."

Actually I can't name any since I can't get into the heart, mind and soul of a man. Then again since the population in general (I think statistics will bare this out) does not believe the Bible is the Word of God (and the percentage is probably higher in the scientific community), I wonder how many in the scientific community (not claiming a conspiracy), those that dictate what is and isn't acceptable science, would accept anything that implies a supernatural "hand" in the creation of man.

"No, there is no "burst" of anything in evolution."

That's counter to statements I've read by evolutionist. Here is one of them:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html

"But, when there is physical evidence that a particular event did NOT happen, such as with the flood, or with a creation 6,000 years ago, then it will state that fact. Not on the grounds that such supernatural events are not possible, but on the grounds that there is evidence that they did not happen."

I'm not really unhung up on the 6,000 year old earth because the Bible doesn't make it crystal clear that the earth is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible records Jesus having spoken about Noah and the flood. What evidence is there the flood didn't take place?

Vance

"The only thing biased about the 'scientific community' is that they expect science to be backed by research, data, and models of investigation."

That statement is an expression of your lack of objectivity. And since you haven't read Behe's book you have no idea if he address Intelligent Design in it (he does).

"Does Behe mention any of his own research in the book? Does any of Behe's own reasearch or lab work validate ID? Where has he published this research?"

This also shows your bias (that bias that real scientist aren't suppose to have). You trash a book you've never read. That's real scientific objectivity. He does discusses some of his research and why it has raised questions in his mind regarding macroevolution.

BTW, did you read Denton's latest book or are you passing on second or third hand information? How about a title.

Your responding to Notto in all but the last comment, so I will let him respond. I have read most of Behe's book and found it entirely unconvincing, but that may be just me.

As for Denton's new book, I actually was looking for it this weekend at Border's but they don't have it, so I will have to get it from Amazon. But I did read the round table of the ID "luminaries" (including Behe) and they all were fairly distressed at his acceptance of evolution along-side his intelligent design. While they praise the first sections of the book which once again set out the reasons why the universe seems to have been designed for humans in particular, they are disappointed with the second half that discusses the development of man entirely in evolutionary terms, even though Denton ascribes the entire process to God's design. AIG says that, with this latest book, Denton has moved into the Theistic Evolution camp.

By the way, they also point out that Behe is no supporter of Creationism. Here is a quote regarding their disatisfaction with the recent ID movement:

"Where do they really stand? Behe has no problem with the idea of man descending from the slime, via fish—so long as it didn't happen ‘by chance.’
Johnson says it would not matter to him if God used evolution or not. He riles theistic evolutionists, because he exposes their surrender to Darwinian naturalism. Nevertheless, it seems he would be comfortable with a Behe-like ‘evolution by intelligent manipulation.’

Denton, who was an agnostic when he wrote his book, has since moved much closer to theistic evolution, not Genesis creation."

Needless to say, I am very interested in reading Denton's new book, called Nature's Destiny. It does seem to continue his opposition to "Darwinian" evolution as a premise, but seems to have simply narrowed the definition of what is "Darwinian" so that he could accept whole sections of evolutionary principals outright. It seems he just opposes the idea that it is "chance" or "random" and not part of an overall design. After I have read it I will report more.

In the meantime, here is a quote from a review of the book at Amazon:

He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."

What amazes me is that Creationists so often point to books by Behe and Denton and even Johnson to support their position of YEC'ism! They point out their credentials, etc, and then cite with glee all the best quotes attacking their definition of "Darwinian evolution". What they fail to point out is that these same people think young earth creationism is EQUALLY false! They all believe in a very old earth and accept that man evolved from earlier life forms. They just believe that God had to have something to do with it because of evidences of design.

And, hey, I agree with them that God had something to do with it! Obviously!

But I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Also, check out this review of Behe I posted (not my own review, but one I agree with in regards Behe's failings):

http://www.christianforums.com/t67993&highlight=Behe