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

[pmh1nic]

There seems to be some dispute within the scientific community regarding what constitutes a "transitional fossil" with some scientist disputing that transitional fossils have been found that strongly support the theory of evolution. Although Darwin didn't have the fossil record we have today during his time he point to the lack of transitional fossils (which should be many) as a difficult argument to over come.

"By the way, how do you get a more ordered (less entropy) snowflake from a raindrop. According to your (WRONG) thermodynamic statement this shouldn't happen."

A snowflake is still water. The struction of the water has become rigid when energy is removed but it's still water.

"You are correct, evidence for the YEC version of creation hasn't gotten any stronger, that is why it was falsified over 200 years ago by Christians."

Actually you're wrong. Advances in our understanding of biochemistry and astronomy point to intelligent rather than evolution's random chance, order out of chaos.

"The main point is, that in at least one example, the scientist quoted in your source has information on his website that clearly says that his assumptions from years ago and his questions about evolution have been for the most part answered and he accepts evolution. Why would all of these old sources still need to be used?"

Is he making that statement so he is afraid of ridicule from his branch of the scientific community? Or is the thought that their may be an God, an intelligent designer that might someday hold him accountable too much for him to deal with?

Seriously, I'm not a scientist but I've read enough on both sides of the debate to realize that evolution is a theory with some very real difficulties and conflicts with laws of physics and scientific observation. That said it is taught as scientific fact.

How many books have you read (not summaries or reviews but actual books) that looking at the universe from the viewpoint of special creation or intelligent design? Or have you swallowed hook, line and sinker the evolutionist theory without any really objective look at the arguments against evolution?

 

[notto]

T
Seriously, I'm not a scientist but I've read enough on both sides of the debate to realize that evolution is a theory with some very real difficulties and conflicts with laws of physics and scientific observation. That said it is taught as scientific fact.

1) disproving evolution does nothing to prove a special creation. This is a standard problem with your argument. There is no 'both' sides of the debate. There is only a single, purely scientific, mainstream, supported, peer reviewed, and accepted theory of diversity on this planet. That theory is evolution.

2) The only thing that can violate a 'law' of physics is a physical phenomena, not a theory or a concept. Can you tell us exactly how the physical phenomena (observed phenomena) of random mutations being selected on within a population for survivability violates a single law of physics. All of the mechanisms that are required in evolutionary theory have been observed. If this is the case, there is no way the theory of evolution can violate the laws of physics.

 

[notto]

Is he making that statement so he is afraid of ridicule from his branch of the scientific community? Or is the thought that their may be an God, an intelligent designer that might someday hold him accountable too much for him to deal with?

No, he is making that statement for the reason he stated on the his website. We have uncovered a lot of evidence in the last 45 years that supports evolution and answers the questions he had when he wrote the material (which is almost ancient by scientific standards, only 5 years after we had discovered DNA).

Many scientists who accept evolution are Christian so obviosly it is not too much for them to deal with.

Evolution does not equal atheism. This is another problem with your argument.

And just for good measure. Evolution is not random chance. This is another problem with your argument (that is called a strawman).

 

[pmh1nic]

"disproving evolution does nothing to prove a special creation."

I'm not necessarily saying that it does but I reject the outright promotion of evolutionary theory with no teaching to the contrary that takes place in our educational institutions.

"There is no 'both' sides of the debate."

Wong again. Answer my question. How many books on theories other than evolution written by scientist have you read? My guess is the answer to that question is none.

"The only thing that can violate a 'law' of physics is a physical phenomena, not a theory or a concept."

We're discussing the theories of how the universe, matter and life came into being. Those all exist in the physical realm. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that you don't get complexity from chaos. The reverse is scientifically proven to be true, your observed phenomena.

I was educated in an environment where evolutionary theory was taught as fact as I suppose you were. I've taken the time to read the arguments against evolution, not just summaries written by those who have a vested interested in promoting evolutionary theory. Take some time to read a book like "Darwin's Black Box" with an open mind putting aside your preconceived notchs for just a few hours. Anyone that says there aren't serious argument against the theory of evolution is either uninformed or being intellectually dishonest.

"Evolution does not equal atheism. This is another problem with your argument."

I never claimed that it did.

 

[notto]

"
We're discussing the theories of how the universe, matter and life came into being. Those all exist in the physical realm. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that you don't get complexity from chaos. The reverse is scientifically proven to be true, your observed phenomena.

Please show me where the 2nd law is stated this way. Define complexity and define chaos.

Again, all of the physical mechanisms used to define the theory of evolution have been observed and do not violate any laws of physics.

As far as your other questions, why would I read books on a topic related to science in an effort to understand that science unless the book was written by a scientist who is not biased by their religious beliefs and who has not stated in tenents that they will ignore any evidence that contradicts that religious belief. It wouldn't be a book on science, would it.

Educational institutions are charged with teaching the best available theories in science and at this point, that is evolution. If a better, unfalsified theory, that explains the evidence we find better than evolution was presented, tested, and peer reviewed, it would be taught. This has not happened.

 

[Vance]

Are we doing entropy again? Even AIG has given up on that one.

 

[pmh1nic]

"Please show me where the 2nd law is stated this way. Define complexity and define chaos."

No. I won't define them. Look it up on the internet or in your local library. Entropy, simplicity, order, chaos and disorder are related and connect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

"As far as your other questions, why would I read books on a topic related to science in an effort to understand that science unless the book was written by a scientist who is not biased by their religious beliefs"

So a scientist that believes in intellgent design is by definition biased by his religion but a scientist that believes in evolution is automatically unbiased and basing his opinion on pure science. That's laughable.

"Educational institutions are charged with teaching the best available theories in science and at this point, that is evolution."

That is also laughable and expresses an ignorance of the state of education in the United States. It's a weak excuse for not taking the time to investigate FOR YOURSELF what evidence there is that counters evolution and an example of the herd mentality.

 

[notto]

"Please show me where the 2nd law is stated this way. Define complexity and define chaos."

No. I won't define them. Look it up on the internet or in your local library. Entropy, simplicity, order, chaos and disorder are related and connect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Then you should be able to explicitely tell us what physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution violates this law. You have yet to do so.

So a scientist that believes in intellgent design is by definition biased by his religion but a scientist that believes in evolution is automatically unbiased and basing his opinion on pure science. That's laughable.

No, but scientists who write material based on the tenets of groups such as ICR and AIG which state clearly that they will ignore any evidence that is contradictory to their religious beliefs should be dismissed as being scientific because, well, they are not scientific.

"Educational institutions are charged with teaching the best available theories in science and at this point, that is evolution."

That is also laughable and expresses an ignorance of the state of education in the United States. It's a weak excuse for not taking the time to investigate FOR YOURSELF what evidence there is that counters evolution and an example of the herd mentality.

Actually, this is the state of education in the entire world. How is that NOT the state of education in the United States. What is taught in biology is accepted by 99.9% of scientists world wide. This is the same way material is selected for curriculums in math, history, physics, biology, chemisty, etc.

I have investigated. I agree with the 99.9% of scientists on the matter.

Why do you disagree with 99.9% of scientists in the field if it is not for religious reasons. Why do your sources disagree if it is not for religious reasons? Why are the materials that doubt evolution always coming from religious sources and 'ministries'. Why nothing out of historically scientific organizations or organizations that are not tied to Christian ministries?

 

[Vance]

True, if a model other than evolution was probable for how God created the diversity of life on this planet, then we WOULD, without doubt, see scientists other than Creationists propounding the models. Everything about the scientific community would promote such new concepts and reward anyone who can show a SUPPORTABLE alternative that fits with all the evidence.

The problem is that even Creationists accept the mechanics of evolution, from genetic mutation and drift to natural selection to morphological change to speciation. Everything about HOW evolution works is already accepted by AIG, and probably ICR. It has taken them a long time to admit all of this after denying it for so long, but eventually, it became too obvious.

The ONLY thing left that they are arguing about is whether these mechanisms can bring about the large changes which would be necessary if every life form developed from earlier life forms. We have the mechanisms which require adaption to fit the environment and the 99.9% Notto mentioned agree that there is nothing to prevent this mechanism from created as MUCH change as necessary to optimize a population group to its environment given enough time. The few that oppose this have never, up to this point, shown any supportable scientific reason why the process would come to a grinding halt a some point.

 

[pmh1nic]

"Then you should be able to explicitely tell us what physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution violates this law. You have yet to do so."

Let's not go in circles. Evolution states that complex systems evolved from less complex systems. The 2nd law of thermodynamics directly relates to energy but applies to systems and levels of complexity. But you knew that already.

"No, but scientists who write material based on the tenets of groups such as ICR and AIG which state clearly that they will ignore any evidence that is contradictory to their religious beliefs"

Show me exactly where that statement ("ignore" any evidence that is contradictory) is made.

"What is taught in biology is accepted by 99.9% of scientists world wide."

Also show me where you came up with that statistic and whether it's directly related to the biology that is taught in support of evolution.

Again, I spend 14+ years in an educational environment that taught evolution as gospel. But I wasn't afraid to have those concepts challenged by reading books and articles that went counter to that teaching. Rather then throw up excuses ("anyone that writes a book counter to evolution is biased or practicing pseudo-science") read (books not summaries and reviews) and understand the challenges to what you've learned, be intellectually honest and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[pmh1nic]

Vance

"The problem is that even Creationists accept the mechanics of evolution, from genetic mutation and drift to natural selection to morphological change to speciation."

I don't know what literature or books you've been reading that state that is the case for creationist (enlighten me) but that is absolutely not my understanding of the creationist view of origins.

I'd also like some supporting documention for that 99.9% figure you and notto throw around.

 

[notto]

"Then you should be able to explicitely tell us what physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution violates this law. You have yet to do so."

Let's not go in circles. Evolution states that complex systems evolved from less complex systems. The 2nd law of thermodynamics directly relates to energy but applies to systems and levels of complexity. But you knew that already.

So can you name a mechanism used in evolution that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics or not? You have still failed to do so.

"No, but scientists who write material based on the tenets of groups such as ICR and AIG which state clearly that they will ignore any evidence that is contradictory to their religious beliefs"

Show me exactly where that statement ("ignore" any evidence that is contradictory) is made.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
AIG Statement of Faith
" By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

Sounds like ignoring the evidence to me.

"What is taught in biology is accepted by 99.9% of scientists world wide."

Also show me where you came up with that statistic and whether it's directly related to the biology that is taught in support of evolution.

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

I was being generous with 1%

As far as the rest of the world, biologists would fall into pretty much the same percentages. Science is done through peer review and consensus and the consensus worldwide is that evolution is valid and is the best explaination for diversity on earth. Can you show us that scientists in other parts of the world doubt evolution?
[/font]

Again, I spend 14+ years in an educational environment that taught evolution as gospel. But I wasn't afraid to have those concepts challenged by reading books and articles that went counter to that teaching. Rather then throw up excuses ("anyone that writes a book counter to evolution is biased or practicing pseudo-science") read (books not summaries and reviews) and understand the challenges to what you've learned, be intellectually honest and let the chips fall where they may.

I have been. I still stick with the 99.9% of the scientists. Can you point us to an author who is critical of evolution who is not doing so because of religious beliefs? Can you point to an author who is critical of evolution whos primary field of study is biology? (I would not choose to read about biology in a book written by a lawyer or a mathematician).

 

[TheBear]

That's 480,000 just in the U.S. I am curious what that figure is globally.

 

[notto]

That's 480,000 just in the U.S. I am curious what that figure is globally.

It is hard to find any statistics because it would seem that outside the US it is a given that biologists accept evolution. They don't poll on things like this.

I have not been able to find any significant evidence that any biologist or large group of scientists outside of the US do not accept evolution.

They might be there. I will have to leave it up to others to find it. I can only assume if the number was significant, there would be some evidence somewhere on the web that would show this disagreement.

 

[pmh1nic]

"So can you name a mechanism used in evolution that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics or not? You have still failed to do so"

One mechanism; the whole premise of evolution is that complicated forms of life evolved from simple inorganic substances and simple forms of life mutate to become more beneficial, more complex, higher forms of life. Amoeba to man. Not.

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science."

And who decides whose academic credentials are "respectable", evolutionary scientist that consider any challenge to the evolutionary theory void out of hand? And are all of those 700 quacks with zero validity to their research that contradicts the evolutionary theory? History including science is full of the 99.9% (questionable number) that turned out to be wrong.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

They didn't say they would ignor facts or things that can be proven using the scientific method. What they did say is that what some claim to be apparent or perceived or claimed based on stringing together facts and suppositions and tying them together to make the claim that they prove the theory of evolution will be rejected.


"Can you point us to an author who is critical of evolution who is not doing so because of religious beliefs?"

Unfortunately I don't read minds. But again you make the assumption that if a person happens to have religious beliefs he cannot be objective. That said I'd suggest reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Biochemist Behe as a starter. Read the book, not an on-line summary.

 

[notto]

Valid science is determined through publication, peer review and replication. Something that creation scientists seem to avoid. Scientists don't consider any challenge void. They expect the challenges to be peer review, published, and backed by data.

You still have not named a mechanism that violates any laws of physics. A premise cannot violate a law. You need to name a physical mechanism. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. By your reasoning, a tree could not grow and a baby could not develop in the womb. The physical mechanism that drives evolution (random mutation) has been observed and violates no laws of physics.

I never said that a person with religious beliefs cannot be objective. The problem arrises when those religious beliefs create bias in a scientists finding. This would take the form of making statements that by definition, no evidence can conflict with their religious beliefs. There are many scientists who remain objective regardless of their religious beliefs, and as I have mentioned before, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution.

I haven't had time to read Behe' book, but it is interesting that he published it in the regular media instead of having it peer reviewed by other scientist and published as a scientific work. This is not typical of a scientist who wants his opinions to be validated by the scientific community.

 

[notto]

They didn't say they would ignor facts or things that can be proven using the scientific method. What they did say is that what some claim to be apparent or perceived or claimed based on stringing together facts and suppositions and tying them together to make the claim that they prove the theory of evolution will be rejected.

Woudl you consider this to be objective or scientific? You say they won't ignore anything proven by the scientific method. Well, an old earth has been proven (or more accurately, a young earth has been falsified). Why do they continue to ignore this?

 

[Vance]

AIG agrees that the evolutionary process as described by science works, but it only produces "micro-evolution". They even agree that evolution can create new species, which is what they USED to call "macro-eovlution", so they have had to redefind macro using the "kinds" word. Nicely vague to avoid further embarrasment.

 

[pmh1nic]

"The physical mechanism that drives evolution (random mutation) has been observed and violates no laws of physics."

This is the physical mechanism that you SPECULATE drives evolution but it has NOT been proven and it does violate the laws of physics.

"Woudl you consider this to be objective or scientific?"

I would say that facts and suppositions tied together as so-called proof of something that violates a cornerstone law of physics is pseudo-science.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

pmh1nic,

Would you please tell me HOW it violates the laws of physics?