Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[Agonaces of Susa]

A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Forbes.com

Several years ago, I came across Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's argument--that the biological evidence for Darwin's theory was much weaker than evolutionary biologists claimed--rekindled my doubts. Just how strong was the evidence that all biological complexity arose by chance and natural selection?

I read all that I could find. Johnson. Dawkins. Wells. Berra. Behe. Dennett. Dembski. What I found is this: The claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.

The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

I saw that Darwinism was a Potemkin village. But it wasn't clear to me why evolutionary biologists were so passionately devoted to such pallid science. The evidence that the Darwinian understanding of biological origins was inadequate has been in hand for quite a while.

Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn't scientists question Darwin's assumption of randomness? Why didn't Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery? Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?

...

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity--the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells--is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

 

[brinny]

The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

 

[hangback]

Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth, that's easy, your an .....
Copy and paste is what creationism is all about, repeat after me.....

FOR THE LAST TIME, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN, NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE BEGAN,
NO ONE.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

i second that, my brotha'

 

[brinny]

Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth, that's easy, your an .....
Copy and paste is what creationism is all about, repeat after me.....

FOR THE LAST TIME, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN, NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE BEGAN,
NO ONE.

then what good is evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

No argument about Darwin -- we left him in the dust decades ago.

As for Dawkins, well, at least he's in the field that'll likely yeild some results.

 

[Nathan Poe]

then what good is evolution?

What good is driving a car if it can't help the homeless?

 

[brinny]

No argument about Darwin -- we left him in the dust decades ago.

As for Dawkins, well, at least he's in the field that'll likely yeild some results.

Dawkins seemed a bit confused when he stated emphatically that evolution is a fact. In addition, he has stated that intelligent design is possible.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by hangback
Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth, that's easy, your an .....
Copy and paste is what creationism is all about, repeat after me.....

FOR THE LAST TIME, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN, NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE BEGAN,
NO ONE.

brinny: then what good is evolution?

What good is driving a car if it can't help the homeless?

:o

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

then what good is evolution?

The hypothesis of evolution is absolutely useless in science.

"[Darwinism is] a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences. ... Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life, but here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn't have any substance, 2) it's preposterous, 3) it's not supported by the evidence and 4) the fact that the biologists are uniformly in agreement about this issue could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests." -- David Berlinksi, author, 2008

Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dawkins seemed a bit confused when he stated emphatically that evolution is a fact.

Things evolve -- we've observed it happening. You can't get much more fact then that.

The desperate, in their infinite desperation, try to shift the semantic goalposts with nonsense such as "That's just 'adaptation!' Show me a dog giving birth to an octopus!" or something equally insipid.

In addition, he has stated that intelligent design is possible.

He did consider panspermia from an alien source as a possibility for the origin of life on Earth -- what of it?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

then what good is evolution?

The Theory of Evolution explains the current biodiversity on this planet. That in turn has application for all sorts of things, including but not limited to medicine, agriculture, conservation biology, etc.

Bottom line is that evolution is a useful, applied science and it's not going away any time soon.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
then what good is evolution?

The Theory of Evolution explains the current biodiversity on this planet. That in turn has application for all sorts of things, including but not limited to medicine, agriculture, conservation biology, etc.

Bottom line is that evolution is a useful, applied science and it's not going away any time soon.

Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

Yes, it's a theory. Just like gravity theory, theory of relativity, germ theory, etc. Do you know what a theory in science is?

As for the origin of life, while I believe the origin of life will have some relevance to the ToE, a lack of an origin of life theory does not invalidate the theory of evolution as it stands. Life still looks like it shares common ancestry regardless of how it originally started.

So no, it's not falling flat at all I'm afraid. If anything, it's become even more relevant in the last couple decades due to the "genomics revolution" currently going on in modern biology.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

Yes, it's a theory. Just like gravity theory, theory of relativity, germ theory, etc. Do you know what a theory in science is?

As for the origin of life, while I believe the origin of life will have some relevance to the ToE, a lack of an origin of life theory does not invalidate the theory of evolution as it stands. Life still looks like it shares common ancestry regardless of how it originally started.

So no, it's not falling flat at all I'm afraid. If anything, it's become even more relevant in the last couple decades due to the "genomics revolution" currently going on in modern biology.

Evolution is a room full of smoke. There is no evidence to any theories written in the "Origin of Species". The origin of species? He knew nothing about the origin of anything.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So this is all you've got? Just empty rhetoric?

You expected anything different this time?

 

[biggles53]

Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.

You've had this explained to you before. You therefore either have the poorest memory on record, or you are deliberately being duplicitous in order to score points.

Evolutionary theory has nothing...NOTHING to say about the origins of life! It was never designed for that purpose, it has NEVER spoken on that purpose!

Your ridiculous charge would be like saying "The theory of gravity has nothing to offer about why there are germs - it falls flat"...!

Evolutionary theory explains why the diversity of life we observe (as fact!) has come about. And it does it perfectly. Despite over 150 years of nervous nellies and religious fundamentalists like yourself trying to poke holes in it, it has stood the test of time. So much so, that it is regarded as THE most well supported theory in all of science! The National Science Academy of the US recently voted it as amongst the top 5 developments in all of science - ever!

 

[brinny]

Things evolve -- we've observed it happening. You can't get much more fact then that.

The desperate, in their infinite desperation, try to shift the semantic goalposts with nonsense such as "That's just 'adaptation!' Show me a dog giving birth to an octopus!" or something equally insipid.



He did consider panspermia from an alien source as a possibility for the origin of life on Earth -- what of it?

he used the term intelligent design. He used that term because he was unable to give an answer or "theory" to the origin of life. He was actually nearly stuttering as he spoke it. He seemed to be at a loss.

 

[Freodin]

he used the term intelligent design. He used that term because he was unable to give an answer or "theory" to the origin of life. He was actually nearly stuttering as he spoke it. He seemed to be at a loss.

In your position, I´d be really careful to psychoanalyse other people. It might backfire.