Why Darwinism is "distinctively atheist"

[BobRyan]

Darwin argues that intellectual honesty finally forced him to either find more and more creative ways to bend and twist scripture in service to the demands of the myths of darwinism - or to reject Christianity altogether.

Sadly he chose to reject Christianity instead of rejecting the mythology of darwinist story telling.

But in the modern debate between the atheist religionist views of darwinism vs the "Science" in "Intelligent Design" we see the distinctive colors of atheism being unveiled in the Darwinist argument against fellow evolutionists that choose the much more scientifically sound solution of "Intelligent Design".

In Romans 1 Paul argues that even in the case of non-Bible-aware "Barbarians" the "Invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE" such that "THEY are without excuse".

The Darwinist that chooses to condemn evolutionists who accept "Intelligent Design" is in fact making the argument that he/she does not see IN The things that are made what Paul says that ungodly non-bible aware Barbarians can see -- then that said darwinist goes on to condemn fellow atheists for admitting to seeing design that God declares they are "without excuse" for pretending to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matthewj1985]

Sorry, didn't notice what sub forum I was in.

 

[Lunar Arcane]

Everything that sustains our life in this world, had to have been perfect. Nothing out of perfect randomness could have made the Earth's axis such an angle for the sun to sustain all our life, but though the way the Earth functions for human life and our bodies alone are a mystery of near perfection, Evolution/Creationism can still be up for debate. But either way, I believe it was the work of God.

 

[Mallon]

For what it's worth, the views of Matthewj1985 definitely don't line up with my own or with those of most other evoltionary creationists (that is, distinctively non-atheist Christians who subscribe to the theory of evolution) here.

 

[BobRyan]

As stated in the OP - there are evolutionists in the Intelligent Design group as well. The issue is not evolutionism per-se rather it is that IN the special case where evolutionists group-A are attacking fellow evolutionists group-B just because they admit to "Intelligent Design" the group-A evolutionists are making a "distinctively atheist" argument.

I bring this up here because in past lives I have seen Christian evolutionists unwittingly drawn into the atheist agenda of attacking Intelligent Design evolutionists.

As Richard Dawkins, P.C Meyers and Provine (and Darwin) all admit - the principles of Darwinist evolutionism drive logically to the atheist conclusion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[laptoppop]

I've always been surprised at the violent way some TEs attack Behe. Behe believes in evolution, he just has the audacity to point out why it is not possible for it to take place outside of a directed context. His book, "Edge of Evolution" is a great book, and details out how studies of germs with HUGE populations and numbers of generations demonstrates clearly the problems with conventional evolutionary theory. Behe just doesn't take things to their logical conclusion -- he stays within an evolutionary framework. Is that so troubling to a THEISTIC evolutionist? Oh well.

Hey Mark -- have you looked Behe's book over? What did you think?

 

[shernren]

If I may.

We (TEs) oppose Behe firstly because, quite simply, some things he says are wrong. As in factually incorrect as demonstrated by science done in the lab here and now by other scientists. And whether he is an evolutionist or a creationist (or a geocentrist or a flat-earther ) if something he says is wrong then someone is going to speak up to correct him, and since many evolutionists are theistic it's entirely expected that TEs will oppose what he says. You've seen my response on the thread about creationists and journal papers where I disagreed with matthewj - it doesn't matter what his position is.

Secondly, we see Behe as standing in a long line of tradition which we know as "God-of-the-gaps". To Behe, there's evolution and then there's ID. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for certain organisms' features, and whatever evolution can't explain must be ID (Dembski's "filter" says as much). The implication is clearly that whatever has evolved isn't intelligently designed. And we don't agree with that. Everything is intelligently designed. If it can't be explained by evolution (and who knows, there might be such elements in nature) it's intelligently designed. If it can be explained by evolution (here we part ways with Behe) it's still intelligently designed. Behe finds intelligent design in the gaps where evolution fails (if there even are such gaps). We find intelligent design everywhere, gap or not.

As far as inexplicable animosity goes, I can never quite understand why AiG and ICR attack OECs with such vehemence either ...

 

[busterdog]

I've always been surprised at the violent way some TEs attack Behe. Behe believes in evolution, he just has the audacity to point out why it is not possible for it to take place outside of a directed context. His book, "Edge of Evolution" is a great book, and details out how studies of germs with HUGE populations and numbers of generations demonstrates clearly the problems with conventional evolutionary theory. Behe just doesn't take things to their logical conclusion -- he stays within an evolutionary framework. Is that so troubling to a THEISTIC evolutionist? Oh well.

Hey Mark -- have you looked Behe's book over? What did you think?

You missed the Altenburg 16 discussion. Here is a clip with some fo the ideas. The new evolutionist find too little power in natural selection. Hello watchmaker. They say that matter self organizes. Or, molecules express the darndest things!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaniwaTdmqI

But ID? Oh, that is horribly unscientific. It is very funny. It is really funny to see these guys walking on egg shells to avoid sounding anything like Behe or to avoid giving nuts like me the slightest toe hold. We are, after all, the abomination of desolation in the Darwinian Temple.

Its kind of funny that they assume that they have something new because they have identified fundamental building blocks, or at least hypothesized that there are such structures. So the question is, how does a building block know to make a skyscraper rather than a highway?

Q. Isn't that the focus of your work, and your recent paper in Science?
A. Yes. In all animal embryos at a very early stage the cells undergo migrations, called gastrulation, to reorganize themselves. For example, the cells that will make up the intestine must end up on the interior of the embryo. Often these cells are born on the surface of the embryo so they have to migrate inside. Gastrulation occurs very early, well before organs begin to form. In humans it begins 3 weeks after fertilization. If there are problems in gastrulation, they can have catastrophic consequences. All of these movements rely on cells knowing their position in the embryo and their position relative to one another.
Q. How do cells know that?
A. Cells learn to distinguish the surface that faces their neighbors from the surface that faces the outside of the embryo by sensing contacts with one another through radial polarization, which happens even before gastrulation. A protein called PAR-6 is involved in polarizing all different types of cells. For example, how do the cells in your intestine know to have microvilli on one surface that would help them absorb nutrients? The cells have to be polarized to build the structures on that particular side of the cell.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/research_forefronts//current_articles/nance.html

Did that sound like a lot of double talk to the extent that it seemed like a conclusion? Well, you read it right.'



http://library.med.nyu.edu/cgi-bin/facbib-bio-sr.pl?RCD=J0139132

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Early embryos of some metazoans polarize radially to facilitate critical patterning events such as gastrulation and asymmetric cell division; however, little is known about how radial polarity is established. Early embryos of Caenorhabditis elegans polarize radially when cell contacts restrict the polarity protein PAR-6 to contact-free cell surfaces, where PAR-6 regulates gastrulation movements. We have identified a Rho guanosine triphosphatase activating protein (RhoGAP), PAC-1, which mediates C. elegans radial polarity and gastrulation by excluding PAR-6 from contacted cell surfaces. We show that PAC-1 is recruited to cell contacts, and we suggest that PAC-1 controls radial polarity by restricting active CDC-42 to contact-free surfaces, where CDC-42 binds and recruits PAR-6. Thus, PAC-1 provides a dynamic molecular link between cell contacts[/SIZE][/FONT]

Emphasis added.

That is a deeper mystery still. How nice to be able to assume that marching toward is just the same as arriving at.

It appears that virtually identical structures end of differentiating for no clearly apparent reason. Knowing the structures exist and that they organize is not an answer to the riddle. If anything, the problem gets more difficult, not simpler, with each level of discovery.

 

[laptoppop]

"If anything, the problem gets more difficult, not simpler, with each level of discovery."

It's fascinating how that turns out to be the case, over and over and over again.

The heavens and the earth declare the glory of their Creator. LOUDLY. From the majestic heavens down to the smallest piece. For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, He IS the potter.

I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Ps. 139:14

 

[busterdog]

"If anything, the problem gets more difficult, not simpler, with each level of discovery."

It's fascinating how that turns out to be the case, over and over and over again.

The heavens and the earth declare the glory of their Creator. LOUDLY. From the majestic heavens down to the smallest piece. For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, He IS the potter.

I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Ps. 139:14

Amen to that.

 

[BobRyan]

You missed the Altenburg 16 discussion. Here is a clip with some fo the ideas. The new evolutionist find too little power in natural selection. Hello watchmaker. They say that matter self organizes. Or, molecules express the darndest things!
.

Once again they paint themselves into a corner trying to deny the obvious. IF as they say it is physics -- chemistry alone that determine the existence of the compound eye and that this is a "function of matter itself" - then we should be able to hand them a sterile ball of mud in the lab and have them come back with a compound eye!!

How sad -- the lengths they go to in pursuing story after story.

Now to "Help" them see their dilemma -

FANTASTIC Animated Cell shows Protein Synth – argues ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related


Dawkins; 11 Second flummoxed response to Darwin 101 question demanding evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

in Christ,

Bob

 

[laptoppop]

Great videos, Bob - thanks!

It is truly amazing the complexities that God designed into the smallest of structures. Man in all his "wisdom" has not yet built a self-replicating machine. God does it in every cell of our bodies.

In terms of Dawkins - there are two main dodges that are used to explain why we don't have clear cut examples of increasing information in a genome.

The first dodge is to try to derail the discussion into semantics. "What do you mean by the term information?" There is a whole discipline called information theory that can answer that question in depth -- far more depth than I have dealt with personally. But the basic meaning is clear. Far too clear for most evolutionists. Given the number of mutations that we have observed, there should be a major pool of examples of clearly positive beneficial mutations which are transmittable through reproduction and are unambiguously beneficial in all cases.

This brings up the second dodge -- cases where degradations of the DNA result in localized benefits, such as a bacteria becoming immune to a drug, but at the same time losing some motility.

Clearly, if evolution were true, we'd expect to have a number of clear examples. The examples we have are cases where the original design is degraded through mutation. For natural selection to work on a population to produce improved beasties, it needs positive information-increasing mutations to work on.

We've seen millions of mutations -- mostly without affect, lots of negative ones, a handful of ones like the bacteria I mentioned. Where are the ones that increase information? Totally missing in action. What we have is a situation where we have seen "mutation load" where the negative mutations have added up to the hurt of the population. Where's the good ones?

Even if folks end up producing an example here or there - the ratios of negative to positive are staggering and present a huge statistical problem to evolutionary theory. What we have functions much more like a designed system, in which there are bounded variations and limits to what works in terms of mutations.

 

[BobRyan]

You are so right about that!

In fact here is a great set of debate clips that show each point you reference above - in real life.

Self-conflicted Darwinists; INDEXED points
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk
Fossils – (0 – 1:13) evols not proving anything - just telling evols stories
Fossils – (1:58 – 4:02) Fossils prove it – ok no they don’t – we don’t need them
Fossil evidence (7:12- 9:10)
Genetic argument (9:10-9:43)

The numbers references the minutes:sec into the video

 

[busterdog]

Once again they paint themselves into a corner trying to deny the obvious. IF as they say it is physics -- chemistry alone that determine the existence of the compound eye and that this is a "function of matter itself" - then we should be able to hand them a sterile ball of mud in the lab and have them come back with a compound eye!!

How sad -- the lengths they go to in pursuing story after story.

I would be happy to see them just acknowledge that belief is critical to science. They are not exempt. Would it kill them to say, "We really dont know what causes x, y or z, and Goddidit is virtually on the same level as our models."

 

[Breckmin]

busterdog: re: naturalistic scientists
<<Would it kill them to say, "We really dont know what causes x, y or z, and Goddidit is virtually on the same level as our models.">>

The problem is they don't even have "God" there to perform the miracle. They believe in a miracle with no One there to make a miracle (abiogenesis, macro-evolution) happen.
Michael

 

[busterdog]

busterdog: re: naturalistic scientists
<<Would it kill them to say, "We really dont know what causes x, y or z, and Goddidit is virtually on the same level as our models.">>

The problem is they don't even have "God" there to perform the miracle. They believe in a miracle with no One there to make a miracle (abiogenesis, macro-evolution) happen.
Michael

And they are all indignant about it too.

 

[Breckmin]

Genetic argument (9:10-9:43)

The numbers references the minutes:sec into the video

The part of the video about the number of chromosomes in different
species is really building a strawman. It does not even come close to
explaining telemore to telemore fusion and human chromosome 2 nor
does it provide rebuttal for the insertion of retroviruses into specific
locations in genes that are passed down. (endogenesis).

Dr. Ying has written an article (real analysis) dealing with the latter:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

I think we really need to be careful not to build a ridiculous argument
that is incongruous to the assertions in science or universal common descent.

The theory has enough real problems to identify rather than just laughing
at a number of chromosomes which is incongruous to any real scientific
claim. We are better than this.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

RE: The definition of science became a victim of circular reasoning

][/B]Why is Darwinism "distinctly evolutionist"[/quote]

Short of contradicting an earlier post I made about "Theistic Evolutionists"
(which I at one time fell for the deception(s), I would like to address what
actually happened in the natural sciences.

The whole problem is actually the result of circular reasoning. Years ago,
someone made the assertion that science was only the study of "naturalistic causes" and could therefore only have naturalistic and materialistic answers (especially regarding origins). How do they know
science is only the study of what is "natural?" What IS "natural?" What
if what we perceive as natural is actually being sustained by the super
natural? What if the process of crystalization was the result of supernatural design? Why assume NO supernatural involvement?

Often when the atheist is confronted with the circular assumption that
everything is natural and therefore conclusions can only be naturalistic
(assumption in science= natural, conclusion = natural assumption=
conclusion), they will start talking about goblins, unicorns, invisible
dragons in your garage (Sagan), and flying spaghetti monsters rather
than deal with how you gauge "natural" verses "supernatural" or
unnatural verses natural. How do you know everything is "natural?"
If you start with this assumption, and immediately eliminate the
POSSIBILITY of the supernatural, then everything you study will
be based on the circular assumption that you started with (it must
be explained naturally).

This is NOT true agnosticism. A true agnostic would make NO assumptions
about "natural" or "supernatural" and they would let the chips fall where
they may (information needs an intelligent source, biological information
needs a supernatural intelligent source, etc). They would be able to
make the logical deduction that RNA/DNA was the result of supernatural
intelligence WITHOUT the circular assumption BIAS that everything is
somehow "natural."

In my view, creationists have not spent enough time exposing this
circular assumption in the definition of science. It is actually the definition
of so called "natural" sciences that is rooted in a circular assumption.

How do we know that so called "natural" is not sustained by "supernatural?" The true agnostic should make no assumptions.

Especially not circular assumptions about the definition of science itself.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[busterdog]

RE: The definition of science became a victim of circular reasoning

][/b]Why is Darwinism "distinctly evolutionist"[/quote]

Short of contradicting an earlier post I made about "Theistic Evolutionists"
(which I at one time fell for the deception(s), I would like to address what
actually happened in the natural sciences.

The whole problem is actually the result of circular reasoning. Years ago,
someone made the assertion that science was only the study of "naturalistic causes" and could therefore only have naturalistic and materialistic answers (especially regarding origins). How do they know
science is only the study of what is "natural?" What IS "natural?" What
if what we perceive as natural is actually being sustained by the super
natural? What if the process of crystalization was the result of supernatural design? Why assume NO supernatural involvement?

Often when the atheist is confronted with the circular assumption that
everything is natural and therefore conclusions can only be naturalistic
(assumption in science= natural, conclusion = natural assumption=
conclusion), they will start talking about goblins, unicorns, invisible
dragons in your garage (Sagan), and flying spaghetti monsters rather
than deal with how you gauge "natural" verses "supernatural" or
unnatural verses natural. How do you know everything is "natural?"
If you start with this assumption, and immediately eliminate the
POSSIBILITY of the supernatural, then everything you study will
be based on the circular assumption that you started with (it must
be explained naturally).

This is NOT true agnosticism. A true agnostic would make NO assumptions
about "natural" or "supernatural" and they would let the chips fall where
they may (information needs an intelligent source, biological information
needs a supernatural intelligent source, etc). They would be able to
make the logical deduction that RNA/DNA was the result of supernatural
intelligence WITHOUT the circular assumption BIAS that everything is
somehow "natural."

In my view, creationists have not spent enough time exposing this
circular assumption in the definition of science. It is actually the definition
of so called "natural" sciences that is rooted in a circular assumption.

How do we know that so called "natural" is not sustained by "supernatural?" The true agnostic should make no assumptions.

Especially not circular assumptions about the definition of science itself.

In Christ,
Michael

Brilliant.

Lets explore what to do with this.

1. Is Breckmin a wild eyed creationist who is opening the door to the burning of biology books and ushering in theocracy? No. So, lets treat as one who is not a threat and find a place for the discussion of his ideas.

2. Is this discussion appropriate in the biology lab or pages of Nature? One could argue either way. But, since this is a problematic discussion, lets just say as evolutionary biologists that this discussion is all well and good, but just take it one door down to the philosophy of biology class and we will be interested to hear how you make out.

3. Is Breckmin's observation useful to hard core atheistic evolutionists? Of course, and even without conversion. So, the answer is very simple. You admit that approach is distasteful. Apreciate the reasoning process. Politely note that it has no substantial impact upon one guys science at this time, but appreciate the need to continue to question fundamental assumptions and look for mistakes in examination of what is by all accounts a theory.

4. Even though the reasonsing process is relatively weak to some, have the courage of your convictions -- that evolution can stand up to something that has been thought out carefully and studied, even if it is less worthy than evolutionary theory. If Evolution is so wonderful, dont be such a chicken about letting ideas like this flourish in the same academy. Encourage the creationists to study, but continue to explain what you feel to be the relative merit of evolutionary theory.

 

[Breckmin]

Thank you, Busterdog, for the gracious affirmation.

For myself, "what to do with this" is to build sound arguments based
on scientific observation and "deduction" (all intelligent information
comes from intelligence and does not form from random)which is 100%
rather than arguments based on circular reasoning and "inductions"
which are often just comparisons.

In the creationism vs. universal common descent argument one might
say "commonalities do not equal relatedness." This is because the
assumption in Darwinian theory is that comparisons in morphological
similarities indicates common ancestry. To the creationist, a bear
and a dog may not have a C.A. but a mouse and a rat could have
possibly shared common ancestry thousands of years ago. There
are scientific reasons for the assertion of differences, but the real
factor is that it is all based on "induction" which can lead to error.

The similarity between apes (particularly chimpanzees) and humans
is a perfect example of where commonalities do not equal relatedness.
We see from behavior alone that panina are mere animals who do
not worship a Deity, are not capable of mathematics nor expressive
communication and only cause the begging of the question of "human
consciousness." So why conclude C.A. with homo sapiens unless you
assume morphological commonalities equal relatedness? In all fairness,
this is now a strawman when analyzing DNA and nucleotide alignment
as well as gene similarities, but still the issue comes down to basic
"induction" rather than deduction which is 100%.

If you assume common ancestry, then you will most certainly find
similarities. The question is "have you started with a circular assumption
in your inductions?" I often argue that the superior logic of creationism
and ID is based on deduction and not induction and circular reasoning.
The reason is that if you start from true agnosticism and observe the
complexity of the living cell you will see a manufacturing process; which
based on our uniform and repeated experience, factories are always
designed by intelligent causes seeking to produce something.

Making no assumptions about "natural" or "supernatural" leaves you
with the basic questions about information and biological nano factories.
A deduction can be made to conclude supernatural intelligent design,
without the bias of a circular assumption which claims everything is
"natural."

This is about exposing basic assumptions at their starting points. Sometimes the atheist will regress even further back on assumptions
regarding personal perception and "reality." The appeal to pure logic
and everything being based on relative personal perception has to be
dealt with a pragmatic understanding of the necessity for absolutes.
The existence of matter, for example, in order to even have beings
of "perception" is a basic absolute.

But we all know that these nonsensical diversions are just a ploy to
get out of dealing with their own flawed assumptions: that assuming
everything is natural is actually the product of circular reasoning.

So would be the "assuming" of a Creator without using the evidence
of information and biological nano factories as a basis of scientific
observation to make a valid assumption.
~Michael