Scientists' quotes

[RickG]

I guess my challenge now is to figure out who is current, are they talking within their field of expertise, have they been peer reviewed, etc. Sounds like a lot of work :-(.

I think there is a lot of merit in what Cadet said, "...there's a significant difference between "a scientist says" and "science says". He also pointed out that those who are actually qualified in the areas in which they publish or comment in the creation science literature, do not seem to have the same issue when publishing in the the mainstream scientific literature; Andrew Snelling comes to mind there. An actual geologist who publishes in the YEC literature supporting a young earth, but has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream scientific literature.

 

[The Cadet]

I guess my challenge now is to figure out who is current, are they talking within their field of expertise, have they been peer reviewed, etc. Sounds like a lot of work :-(.

Earnest scientific investigation tends to be hard work. It's not just hard to find out who is reliable and who is not, it's also hard to actually understand what's being said. For example, creationists like to cite the work of Douglas Axe to establish that somehow, evolution is improbable to the point of impossibility. Axe, however, denies that his work has anything to do with that. The work itself is impenetrably dense and complex, to the point where even the summary and critique posted by PandasThumb, a blog ostensibly designed for laypeople is way, way beyond my understanding. This is the kind of thing you have to deal with when wading through complex science, and biology is not easy by any stretch of the imagination.

The alternative is, of course, taking the easy way out and looking to see if there's any sort of consensus view within the field. This is far less rigorous, but from my experience, generally a good way of examining where the evidence lies in most scientific fields. What the consensus tells us is essentially "this is what the vast majority of practicing experts in this field hold to be accurate". And there is a massive consensus among biologists when it comes to evolution. How massive? Well, to put it bluntly, you're about as likely to find a historian who denies the holocaust than an evolutionary biologist who denies evolution.

This is less rigorous (and less intellectually satisfying), but it has the advantage of not requiring massive expertise in the field - as said, science is hard. Fringe groups like ICR, AiG, and the book you got those quotes from prey precisely on this lack of expertise. They feed you just enough knowledge to make you feel like you know what you're talking about, to give you the impression that evolution is not well-evidenced and also impossible while ignoring the massive bulk of evidence that supports the theory.

 

[dysert]

Why not try a different tack and tell us why we should believe the Bible?
Even if evolution was proven to be false tomorrow you would still not be any closer to finding the answer, you would still need to show why a god was responsible for everything, just like the people thousands of years ago made up gods to answer the questions they couldn't answer, you're still doing it in exactly the same way and you're still no closer to finding an answer than they were, I would say that was just standing still wouldn't you?

I'm in no position to tell you why you should believe the Bible. I can just tell you my experience. I chose to believe it, and so much of it makes (spiritual) sense now, whereas it didn't before. For those who choose not to believe it, I guess they'll arrive at what's "true" for them in some other way. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I'm in no position to tell you why you should believe the Bible. I can just tell you my experience. I chose to believe it, and so much of it makes (spiritual) sense now, whereas it didn't before. For those who choose not to believe it, I guess they'll arrive at what's "true" for them in some other way. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

And the rest of the post, what if evolution was shown to be false where would your God stand?

 

[RickG]

Fringe groups like ICR, AiG, and the book you got those quotes from prey precisely on this lack of expertise. They feed you just enough knowledge to make you feel like you know what you're talking about, to give you the impression that evolution is not well-evidenced and also impossible while ignoring the massive bulk of evidence that supports the theory.

In other words, "Intellectual Dishonesty". Manipulating information that appears to support ones position while ignoring everything that does not support that position. To me, that degrades the very fabric of Christianity.

 

[RickG]

And the rest of the post, what if evolution was shown to be false where would your God stand?

Why not?

 

[dysert]

And the rest of the post, what if evolution was shown to be false where would your God stand?

He'd stand where He's always stood -- as the creator of everything. (Which I believe is true regardless of evolution.)

 

[The Cadet]

He'd stand where He's always stood -- as the creator of everything. (Which I believe is true regardless of evolution.)

True. Whether or not evolution, abiogenesis, and the like are true, it poses absolutely no challenge to the idea of the Christian god existing.

 

[Jan Volkes]

He'd stand where He's always stood -- as the creator of everything. (Which I believe is true regardless of evolution.)

Forgive me but that cannot be true, if you honestly felt like that the existence of evolution would not even be on your Radar,
you would not give evolution a second thought, instead...

 

[Jan Volkes]

True. Whether or not evolution, abiogenesis, and the like are true, it poses absolutely no challenge to the idea of the Christian god existing.

Then why do they even bother with evolution if they already have the answer? perhaps their god is just not enough.

 

[RickG]

Forgive me but that cannot be true, if you honestly felt like that the existence of evolution would not even be on your Radar, you would not give evolution a second thought, instead...

Only if one views the Genesis account of creation as literal. Most Christians don't.

 

[Papias]

dysert-

Several points.

First, quotes from individual scientists aren't very helpful due to the numbers involved. There are literally millions of scientists, of all different religions, ideologies, personal histories, and levels of honesty. Scientists are human beings, and out of millions of them, there are going to be some who hold all kinds of crazy ideas. For instance, there are undoubtedly scientists who think that space aliens walk among us, etc. What you want are consensus views of scientific organizations, or peer-reviewed results.

Second - The Cadet's great post pointed out that many of these are not trustworthy for various reasons. But even if they were, and you had 10 times as many, that still would be useless due to point #1 above. After all, 70 out of 4 million is less than 0.002%.

Third - and most importantly:

Most of these quotes are against abiogenesis, not against evolution or common descent. The evidence for abiogenesis is much weaker than that for evolution or common descent (because the evidence for evolution or common descent is so massive). I think a perfectly acceptable Christian position is that God used a miracle to make the first cell, and then used evolution after that. That position only denies a small amount of evidence, and is at least somewhat realistic, as opposed to the denial of evolution or common descent.

Though I don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith, I think it is at least reasonable. (I can post my reasons for not taking that position myself if you care).

Have you considered that possibily? Of rejecting abiogenesis (so God uses a miracle to make the first cell) and accepting God using evolution from that point forward?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[dysert]

dysert-

Several points.

First, quotes from individual scientists aren't very helpful due to the numbers involved. There are literally millions of scientists, of all different religions, ideologies, personal histories, and levels of honesty. Scientists are human beings, and out of millions of them, there are going to be some who hold all kinds of crazy ideas. For instance, there are undoubtedly scientists who think that space aliens walk among us, etc. What you want are consensus views of scientific organizations, or peer-reviewed results.

Second - The Cadet's great post pointed out that many of these are not trustworthy for various reasons. But even if they were, and you had 10 times as many, that still would be useless due to point #1 above. After all, 70 out of 4 million is less than 0.002%.

Third - and most importantly:

Most of these quotes are against abiogenesis, not against evolution or common descent. The evidence for abiogenesis is much weaker than that for evolution or common descent (because the evidence for evolution or common descent is so massive). I think a perfectly acceptable Christian position is that God used a miracle to make the first cell, and then used evolution after that. That position only denies a small amount of evidence, and is at least somewhat realistic, as opposed to the denial of evolution or common descent.

Though I don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith, I think it is at least reasonable. (I can post my reasons for not taking that position myself if you care).

Have you considered that possibily? Of rejecting abiogenesis (so God uses a miracle to make the first cell) and accepting God using evolution from that point forward?

In Christ-

Papias

I have made my beliefs clear in several posts and in several ways. I don't feel like rehashing them again. I do reject abiogenesis, and I also reject common descent (not for religious reasons, but just because I think it has an internal consistency problem). I posted the OP (in ignorance, it seems) to give an audience to what other scientists (without paying attention to their areas of expertise) have said. It at least generated some interesting conversation for a few hours.

 

[Papias]

OK. Thanks for the quick reply. God bless-

Papias

 

[Jan Volkes]

I do reject abiogenesis, and I also reject common descent (not for religious reasons, but just because I think it has an internal consistency problem).

Even though people across the world have spent their whole life studying the subject think it all works perfectly it means nothing to you, forgive me if I don't care what you reject, religions obviously do more harm than good.
I could never reject something I knew nothing about, I would feel like a fool if nothing else.

Again I was wrong when I said there was hope for you yet, that's twice in one day I have been wrong.
See how easily we can be fooled.

 

[Loudmouth]

Stephen Grocott, PhD, chemistry

If one believes in evolution, then one has to also account for the origin of life – the very first step. Without this, the whole subject of evolution hangs on nothing.​

​

That is like arguing that your local weatherman has to explain the ultimate origin of the matter in the atmosphere before he can talk about how the weather changes. Guess what? The atmosphere does exist and it does change. The ultimate origin of the atmosphere means very little for figuring out how it changes over time.

The same for life. It matters little where the original life came from. We can still figure out how it changed over time without needing to know the ultimate origin of life.

Paul Davies, theoretical physicist and cosmologist

When I set out to write this book [The Fifth Miracle], I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin…. Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna. Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There are two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists…. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding.​

​

Arguing that science is false because it too closely resembles your beliefs is not a good argument to make.

Jeremy R. Bergman, PhD, human biology

Oversimplified, life depends on a complex arrangement of three classes of molecules: DNA, which stores the cell’s master plans; RNA, which transports a copy of the needed information contained in the DNA to the protein assembly station; and proteins, which make up everything from the ribosomes to the enzymes. Furthermore, chaperones and many other assembly tools are needed to ensure that protein is properly assembled. All of these parts are necessary and must exist as a properly assembled and integrated unit. DNA is useless without RNA and proteins, although some types of bacteria can combine the functions of the basic required parts.​

When Dr. Bergman can demonstrate that this is true for all life that has ever existed, only then will he have a relevant point.

George Javor, PhD, biochemistry

But we now know that even the simplest of living cells, bacteria . . .

Same as above. Until Javor can demonstrate that modern bacteria are the simplest life that has ever existed, he doesn't have a relevant point.

Stephen Grocott, PhD, chemistry

The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mind-boggling.​

​

Grocott's lack of imagination is not science's problem.

​

John K. G. Kramer, PhD, biochemistry

No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level,​

​

Yes, they have. All you need to do is hold the human and chimp genomes next to each other. The differences in DNA are the macroevolutionary changes that have occurred on the molecular level.

​

Arial Roth, PhD, biology

The presence of complexity – interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present – poses another major problem for evolution. For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without a complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles.​

​

Apparently, Dr. Roth has never heard of jellyfish who have muscles and nerves but no brain.

​

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess my challenge now is to figure out who is current, are they talking within their field of expertise, have they been peer reviewed, etc. Sounds like a lot of work :-(.

You can throw out all of the arguments based on "I can't imagine how . . . " and "no one knows of x, therefore y". Arguments based on ignorance and incredulity don't work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All this sentence tells us is just how ignorant Stephen Grocott is, he doesn't like the way evolution is set up so he want's to change it to make it seem as stupid as he is.
​

Evolution as we all know has nothing to do with the origins of life just as the bible does not tell us about Allah or the FSM,
evolution is only concerned with life, no life no evolution.
Please tell me what's hard to understand about that?

What's so hard to understand about no origin of life - no life - no evolution? You can't just say oh geee, life exists so it evolves. Your theory demands it comes from non-life - through no one knows what mechanism, or conditions or even how. Your only observation is that life was not, then it was - everywhere all over the globe at once, except for man and the animals with him which was the last creation, because they had not had time to spread out far before the continents were separated at Babel.

Most Christians ignore this fact too. That all life prior to man exists on almost every continent as we see it now, only man and the animals created with him are segregated by continents.

Evolution as we all know, is one of the most flawed theories that exist. You observe breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species in real life - then refuse to apply that knowledge to the fossil record. Instead insisting things never once observed took place.

 

[Loudmouth]

What's so hard to understand about no origin of life - no life - no evolution?

Let's see how this works for other fields of science.

No origin of matter, no atmosphere - no meteorology?

Are you saying that in order to have a natural explanation for how weather changes we also have to have a natural explanation for the origin of the universe?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can throw out all of the arguments based on "I can't imagine how . . . " and "no one knows of x, therefore y". Arguments based on ignorance and incredulity don't work.

Exactly... so stop trying those strawmen when it comes to creation and your claiming "I can't imagine how, and no one knows of x, therefore y."

Stop ignoring all of observation of the natural world and breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species - then ignoring it totally when it comes to classifying the fossil record. If they ever get around to correcting any of their classification mistakes you will find you are left with nothing to theorize about except Kind after Kind.