For the average adult under retirement age Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been the one politically correct explanation of the existence of humankind.
Regardless of what your theological beliefs are, the federal government has decided that your tax dollars will pay for all children in the public school system to learn that the universe was created by the Big Bang among other twisted facts and theories. With there being no alternate source of the universe approved by the Department of Education this will be the one science lesson that all of our “students of the state” will receive.
The alleged reasoning is that the students need to grasp that the earth and solar system were created without imposing on the rights of students of no faith to be free from religion. The students of Christian and Jewish Faiths however, are not afforded this same protection. The Judea and Christian teachings not only speak of God as the sole Creator but, they also reference the age of the earth which is highly contradictory to the modern science teaching of 4.6 billion years.
Dr. John Morris, leading creationist researcher and president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) accurately describes the Big Bang Theory as such:
“According to the mainstream Big Bang idea, our universe abruptly sprang into existence some 15 billion years ago, sending matter careening through space. After millions of years it had cooled enough to coalesce into billions of rotating proto galactic-discs, and much later into stars. Over the billions of years, some stars underwent super nova, spewing material back into space, which later coalesced into second generation stars, some of which likewise exploded, leading to third generation stars like our sun. The planets are comprised of left-over star dust which didn’t fall into the sun.”
Despite that an astounding 82% of Americans believe that the universe was created by God you will not find a hint of this (even in theory) in any of your kids’ science books. Surprisingly enough students are not taught that natural rights are guaranteed by an explosion in the sky.
It is the right and the duty of the parents to conduct their child’s spiritual training how they see fit. It is NOT the right of the federal government to defy these teachings with a mere theory that cannot be proved and holds no benefit by learning it or not.
By comparing the number you see that 18% of Americans believe that God had no place in creation while 100% of public schools teach it. This can only leave one to believe that the public schools are failing us by acting on their own accord with disregard to any sort of American Tradition. The topic of creation is not even open for debate.
The left couldn’t care less if the kids are confused between teachings of faith and the teachings of the state because the students are their voter pool of the future, and if the schools can slowly take away from the credibility of creation then morality will soon follow. This leaves nothing left to believe in except “what’s on your platform for me”.
The theory of evolution must be deemed as a religion itself. Webster defines faith as “a belief in that which cannot be proven” and the theory of evolution cannot be proven. On the other hand Dr. Morris developed a very extensive mathematical improbability of evolution. This formula is based on the evolutionist’s own theory of random mutation and their own timeline for the creation of the earth.
“All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! “
The Department of Education is letting us down. They have developed products for society that can tell you what Roe vs. Wade is and what Everson v. Board of Education is but cannot tell you the first three words of the Preamble. A must read for anyone interested in this topic is David Barton’s article “The Separation of Church and State.” Mr. Barton goes into great detail on how our forefathers held the protection of the Christian Church as a top priority during the infancy of Democracy.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address, 1805
It is true that we have the freedom to practice any religion that we want (even though that was not Jefferson’s intent), but the idealist Judges are constantly taking away rights from the 82% and giving them to 18%. what is the agenda?
If the norm has to be teaching lies and blind ideology it would be better if they taught nothing at all on the matter. A school in Atlanta Georgia seemed to have a fair approach to balancing the original meaning of church and state and the new meaning. The school officials placed stickers in science textbooks that merely stated:
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
You know the rest, the stickers were deemed unconstitutional.
It is and should be an individual decision of whether to believe the theory of evolution or not but it should by no means be forced upon the states and private citizens as a must learn. How can a nation be taxed and then represented with something that we never did and never will want? This land is still your land!
Said Morg173 @ 9:31 pm | Permalink
Very important points, Morg. I think secularism has taken a firm foothold in our culture and I’m not certain how we’ll be able to shake ourselves from it. It would seem that because we’re still a predominantly Christian nation we should be able to do something about it before it gets worse.
Comment by Cao — 2/27/2005 @ 6:55 am
The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not matters of faith and certainly not theories promulgated by a religion in support of that religion’s teachings or theory of God. That is right I said theory of God. None of us were around when God created the heavens and earth so any explanation offered falls into the category of theory. The Big Bang is a pretty good theory that so far can not be disproved and so has gained credence. In school, children are taught that these things are theory. The gap theory and the theory of creationism are not taught because unfortunately they lack credance and are theories put forth in support of a particular religous viewpoint or theory of God. The Big Bang and evolution are explanations only of how God may have created heaven and earth and all the animals and man. They become problematic only if you are wedded to the bible being literal in all aspects. While more than 80% of Americans believe in God, a much lower percentage believes that every word in the King James version of the bible is straight from God’s mouth and moreover to be taken literally. Many do not even use the King James version of the bible. I would think that given that several translations of the bible exists and since all bible do not even contain the same books (men decided which of the scrolls woudl be included in the bible) that folks woudl realize that every word int eh bible cannot be literal. Once you except this it is not such a leap to accept that hmmm maybe this how God did that.
Comment by Carol — 2/27/2005 @ 8:05 am
Public education……..what a joke. I just had a sworn statement for a lost piece of equipment filled out by one of my outgoing students, the statement was one sentence long and had these words in it. magazzin (magazine) and wepon (weapon). He is 20 years old.
Comment by RichardNixon — 2/27/2005 @ 9:25 am
So if it can’t be disproved then it should be taught, is that right? That’s kind of twisted thinking, if you went with that criteria for what teach, then that would include just about every crazy philosophy that ever existed.
Comment by Cao — 2/27/2005 @ 10:02 am
Carol,
You pointed out that the Big Bang cannot be disproved but you failed to mention that creation cannot be disproved. What makes your theory better?
Secondly referring to the KJV bible. When did that become the seccularist’s be all and end all of Scripture. No approved translations of the bible are translated from King James. Every version is transcribed directly from the original Hebrew and Aramaic text but written using the verbage of the culture.
And yes God is a theory (by definition alone), but why is that “theory” looked at as hate speech and banned from all public venues because of it’s “offensive nature”, while the theories that Christians take as offensive are celebrated as truth?
And I would love to know what makes the Big Bang a good theory.
If you want to prove that intelligent design can “just happen” then go take 20 oranges and keep throwing them in the air, and when they land into four perfect rows of five then give me a call.
Comment by Barry — 2/27/2005 @ 10:46 am
I believe in both creationism and evolution, so it really isn’t as black and white as all that.
That being said, my boss and I had this very conversation a few months back. My boss is an ordained Baptist minister who feels as you do Morg. We went back and forth for a couple of hours. Finally, the libertarian in me came out and I proposed to him that all of the tax money that goes to public education be diverted to vouchers and then each parent could chose the schools and the theories that their children would be taught. Get rid of public education altogether (it isn’t working anyway) and then you could use that money to have your children taught in a manner that you feel is proper. That is what we need to push for - then this would be a non-issue. In the meantime, evolution is a scientific theory and it will continue to be taught in schools – there isn’t any going back from that whether you agree with it or not. That doesn’t mean that you can’t pass on your faith and beliefs to your kids. You are their parent and they are going to put more faith in you than a teacher.
Comment by Ashley — 2/27/2005 @ 6:44 pm
Ashley, you are right. I did fail to mention that many people believe that God governed evolution. About half of the creationists believe that in fact. I believe in the literal story of Creation but that is a whole different post.
You are absolutely right about school vouchers. As I have said on TWA several times we need to see lots more privatization and alot less federal regulating.
Thanks for bringing that up Ashley.
Comment by Morg — 2/27/2005 @ 7:51 pm
Barry, the theory of creationism, that God made the earth about 6,000 years ago, and man five days later, does not work because we know the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now the Gap theory has come along to explain the gap between the actual age of the earth and the advent of man 6,000 years later. The Gap theory may be a perfectly good theory and may be taught in schools someday. However, it has not yet be subjected to peer review and scientific scrutiny to ensure it can not be disproven by any known facts. The Big Bang theory is taught because it went through such a process. Intelligent design is not taught in schools.
I don’t mean God is a theory-he isn’t. I mean actions attributable to God. As Ashley points out schools teach science and parents teach religion. There is no reason why the two cannot go hand in hand. More importantly there is no reason to fear that because schools teach the Big Bang theory or evolution that a child will grow up be an unbeliever provided the parent has done their duty. Ashley is living proof.
Comment by Carol — 2/27/2005 @ 8:56 pm
Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be vanquished. It’s “invincible” because it disavows its only means of escape. Take Scientific Naturalism as an example.
Scientific Naturalism accepts only that which can be explained in terms of natural processes. From the beginning, it rules out any acknowledgement of a Creator. In doing that though, it becomes invincibly ignorant in understanding, not just the Creation, but any created thing.
Consider a brand new car. Using the premises of Scientific Naturalism, how long would it take for such a thing to arise through natural processes—-surely billions upon billions of years for glass, plastic, metal, and so forth to come together in such unlikely ways? Yet the car may only be a few months old.
The same mistake happens when the Scientific Naturalist looks upon the cosmos. It, like any created thing, appears much older if the possibility of creation is denied beforehand.
The Scientific Naturalist, however, responds that the age of the universe is inherent in the data—-that to believe otherwise is to believe God created a cosmos that looks deceptively old. But the truth is God’s not trying to “trick” us into thinking the universe is any older than it really is any more than an auto maker would try to trick us into thinking a car is older than it is. If there’s any deception going on, it’s in the mind of the beholder.
So the great age of the universe lies not in the data at hand, but in the invincible ignorance of those who insist on denying its Creator.
—-Bill Brewer
Comment by Alamo Bill — 2/27/2005 @ 9:56 pm
As you see I am in the process of switching from my real name to my “assumed” name. All of my posts from here foreward will be by Morg.
________________________________________
Nicely put Bill. I am reluctant to even try to follow such a well written post.
Carol my point is that being there is no proof of evolution (meaning a continuous process) why then would it be enforced by a government that vows to not mingle in the affairs of religion, when the theory of evolution in it’s most innocent form leaves the open ended question of the existence of God.
Basically if God is not The Creator then why bother worshiping him?
I think that the question that is being missed is, since The Bing Bang cannot be proven (and it can’t) any further than Creation can be proven then why doesn’t The Department of Education just teach nothing at all? Or since there is more than one theory on where the universe came from, why can’t we teach them all? I am sure that if the accepted and the rejected were flipped you might would say the same.
And referring to parents teaching religion…yes parents are the teachers of religion but the schools should not even border on comprimising thier teachings.
Good post nonetheless Carol.
Comment by Morg/Barry — 2/28/2005 @ 12:47 am
Interesting discussion in many ways though there are a couple of well-known points in Big Bang’s favor - more rational evidence, if you will, than there is for the existence of a Creator.
Chief among these, of course, is the background radiation evenly distributed throughout the universe, measurable, provable, and pointing to a huge explosion in a far distant time as surely as, say, seeing the devastation in Florida after a hurricaine passes. You weren’t there for the hurricaine, but you see the damage inflicted by what logic tells you was super high winds; you’re in a sub-tropical zone, and your conclusion that a hurricaine blew through is a logical inference.
Now if you see the same damage and develop the imaginative explanation that a thousand foot tall giant sneezed and caused the disaster, you may be right - but you’re making an assumption or a leap of faith, not an inference based on logic and evidence.
That the universe is extremely old is demonstrable through physics that does not depend on inference from the fact of background microwave radiation, nor on the carbon dating that is the favorite bugbear of IDers for terrestrial evolution dates.
That simple and incontrovertible (and again, proven - no theory) fact is red shift. Put simply, and as you undoubtedly recall from high school, the farther light travels, the more its spectrum balance shifts toward red and ultimately infrared. Thus, the light from the sun at 93 million miles away from us is measurably “redder” than the light we see from a 100 watt bulb. The rate of red shift is constant and measurable - which is why we know that the farthest objects we can “see” are about 11 billion light years away, which makes them at least eleven billion years old.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the integrity of one’s personal beliefs, but it does indicate that there is in fact “evidence” both for a Big Bang and for the age of the universe that is based on hard, good science, and not on theories with holes in them.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/1/2005 @ 3:45 am
Consider if you will, how irrational that is. Nature is interdependent. There is a “food chain”, if you will. Everything depends upon everything else. So how do you explain that all of this natural order would occur out of that?
Seems to me that science is dumbing down in order to accept that theory.
What would we accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong?
Answer: One car of any color, but black and only one time. … No matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one proof that it is false to show it to be false.”
The 2001 Kansas School Board eliminates the falsification test and substitutes the following: “Share interpretations that differ from currently held explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims. Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions.”
Repeated problems with the theory of evolution have required its advocates to redefine evolution to mean merely “change.” One biology textbook defines evolution as “the totality of all changes that have occurred in organisms from the beginnings of life on earth to the present day.”
Obviously, that definition is so vacuous that it is both meaningless and incapable of the falsification test. Another textbook definition of evolution uses fancier language, but is similarly empty: “any genotypic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generation to generation.”
Once students accept such hollow definitions of evolution, it becomes easier to get them to accept more controversial notions. The hypothesis that all living organisms on Earth are descended from one primordial ooze can become an exam question.
I’m sorry, but that seems utterly ridiculous to me as Morg pointed out with his example of the oranges thrown in the air that would fall in a perfectly straight line. You could conduct similar experiments; just doesn’t happen.
Comment by Cao — 3/1/2005 @ 5:44 am
Superhawk bro,
Science is based on what the eye can see, and what can be physically proven. Basically we can draw a theoretic conclusion that things we can see may be 11 billion years old, but the only way to prove this hypothesis would be to actually travel the distance on a timed stopwatch. That can’t happen so we can only speculate on how far away any particular object really is. That answer may sound week to you but that’s how I see it, but lets say that these stars are that old. How then does that prove that the Earth was created that way and at that time?
We are talking about the creation of the earth. The bible is a book written under a divine influence for the people of the Earth. God says that on a particular day He created the Heavens and the Earth. To me that sounds like the Earth and it’s atmosphere and possibly the eternal heaven. So perhaps there are stars that are billions of years old, maybe there were or are other planets and other life, and if there are then I am sure that God wrote bibles for them too.
My main point was that the Bing Bang cannot be proven to have created the Earth and that we do not share the same ancestors with cats and dogs.
Consider this, if we just happened to come into existence right along with all other animals, then how did we all morph into totally different organisms from the same organism. Where does the human emotion of love, hate, and depression come from. Why do we as humans have an empty feeling of needing to embrace something more powerful than us? Some look for that higher power in Science, some in God, some in money and earthly power. So how did these emotions evolve out of pond scum? Humans also have an ingrained sense of right and wrong regardless of what the laws say. Wouldn’t you agree that it is wrong to kill someone even if there was no law against murder?
It is a greater leap of Faith to believe that there is no God to create all of this than it is to put Faith in the Creator. According to the religion of evolution there is no need to even strive for anything while we are here because in a short 50-75 years we will all dwindle into the nothingness.
It may also be important to point out that up until 8 yrs ago I was an atheist/evolutionist and I really didn’t honestly believe the things that I was saying but I really didn’t want there to be a God, because His existence would discredit alot of the things that I wanted to do.
I have been on both sides of the fence, but just remember that Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are the ones who are blessed.
Comment by Morg — 3/1/2005 @ 9:52 am
Morg,
I am content for everyone to believe what they believe. I wanted to start off saying that so the rest of my comment doesn’t come off the wrong way.
I am really curious about your journey. I have never been an atheist but, at the same time, I have had no problem reconciling God and evolution. I figure that is God is omnipotent he could handle evolution. I wonder what how you went from believing in no God and in evolution to believing in God and strict creationism.
Let me stress that I am not trying to make you see things my way. I am truly curious. I have never met anyone who has gone from atheist/evolutionist to Christian/creationist. I’d like to get your point of view.
Comment by Ashley — 3/1/2005 @ 8:55 pm
Ashley,
It is not that I ever really fully believed in evolution. Up until I was 21 I just wanted there to not be a God.
Then circumstances happened, one thing led to another and I started believing in God. For a couple years after though, I still assumed that God created the world using the Big Bang. It wasn’t until a couple of years ago when I was actually trying to argue the point that God could have used the Big Bang did I change my mind.(Of course he could have because he is God)
I started doing research comparing info on evolution sites with info on creation sites and the evolution theories just stopped making sense. How can you claim something in the name of Science without any proof to support a scientific conclusion?
The theory of gravity is a theory but we can test the theory for it’s integrity, unlike evolution which is supposed to be an ongoing process; yet we haven’t seen any evidence of it in recorded history.
I remember in physics class that if your hypothesis was not supported by your experiment then the test results were either failed or inconclusive.
So basically it came down to having to put faith in evolution, or faith in creation.
IMO I believe in the literal story of creation, and I have several reasons why but just not enough time to go into them right now.
Like I said believing in the literal story is my personal preference and I feel that trying to justify creation with science is trying to make God’s ways, our ways…and that can’t be done.
Comment by Morg — 3/2/2005 @ 8:35 am
Interesting points raised by Morg and moving relation of a faith journey in response to Ashley.
A problem that arises in discussions like this is that people on both sides of the issues tend to “cross over” from their own sphere of interest and expertise into one that they consider oppositional, at times using techniques or language of the opposition to try to disprove it (usualy failing to do so) or to uphold their own.
There is, for example, a small but vocal number of scientists who attempt to proclaim that their findings (not cosmological, in general, cosmologists being amonmg the most open minded of thinkers, but more likely folks like neurobiologists, who have discovered both a biochemical “altruism” center in the brain and a “faith gene” that predisposes some people to believe in the metaphysical) “demonstrate” the non-existence of a divinity, putting belief in a biochemical or genetic realm.
The larger scientific community considers people like this as kooks, because they are aware that experimental science can never prove or disprove the existence (or nature or anything else) of a concept that is of its very nature metaphysical. Science deals only with what it can prove of the physical world, or what it can infer logically based on what it can prove.
Faith, on the other hand, deals (as much of Morg’s comments do) with that which we know through other means than the strict application of reason - intuition, faith, feeling and sense, transcendental experience. Religion exists in this realm of experience.
Let me try a (flawed) analogy. I watch a trial on TV. I see the accused. I observe his/her facial expressions, demeanrt, posture, tone of voice. I KNOW the person is guilty; I intuit it; all of my life experience and insight into poeple informs me in my gut that this person comitted the crime.
None of that, however, rises to the legal standard of proof, which must be physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and/or powerful circumstantial evidence based on credible inference from physical evidence or accepted testimony. If I can’t marshall enough of that - motive, method, and opportunity - I cannot convict the accused no matter how certain I am of his/her guilt.
So also with science and the epistemological experience overall. I may know that my mother loves me, but I cannot prove it with the tools of science since love exists apart from scientific inquiry.
The non-scientific, non-rational approach of IDers crops up when one tries to use the language of science to prove a pre-existent belief - say in biblical creation. This is what Rome was guilty of in its persecution of Galileo, who simply observed things in the universe that appeared contrary to the biblical story of creation. Galileo the scientist simply observed natural phenomonon, asked what its explanation could be, and postulated a theory (that proved largely wrong. BTW) to explain it. For this he was tortured at age 70 because he did not attempt to fit his findings into the accepted Christian cosmology opf the time - a flat earth at the center of the universe, which is what people THOUGHT Genesis predicated (it kinda does).
Science and belief are discrete areas that do not conflict and need not intersect. More soon!
Comment by Superhawk Brother — 3/2/2005 @ 11:49 am
And a few more thoughts…
It is the very discreteness - the utter separateness - of the spheres of religion, science, and philosophy that gives them their value. Where scientists (including evolutionists and Big Bangers) attempt first to describe and second to explain the phenomens of the natural world, never do they even attempt to explain the WHY of any of it. This just isn’t in their province at all.
The quest to find meaning in the physical reality in which we live - the universe and its size and its origins, our complexities and consciousnesses and emotions - that quest belongs in the realm of religious belief, which unlike science CAN take into account the non-rational and ineffable experiences of truth and reality that most of us have.
Geology can explain to us how a forested and snow-capped range of moutains came into being, but it can neither describe its beauty to us or explain why we find it beautiful. Geology cannot address the sense many of us have that such an aspect of creation and the thoughts and feelings it engenders in many of us is one of the ways that God communicates to us - in the words of the poet Whitman speaking of grass but in fact about all creation -
“Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropped,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?”
Such a sublime idea - that the Lord’s creation in its beauty is a sign to us to inquire who its author is!
But such a thought isn’t science, never can be - and never should be.
In trying to justify religious belief by equating it with or pinning it to scientific inquiry, you are doing the oddly perverse thing of limiting religion to the sphere of science. In trying to replace science with faith, or marry them, you are denigrating the very value of the most fundamental virtue of Christian belief - the faith that is a gift from God and leads us to John 3:16.
Take an extra example or two, apart from the problems that scientist Galileo encountered mentioned above.
Of the many, many biblical passages that seem at odds with science (salt pillars, seas parting, New Testament resurrections, and so on), the easiest example occurs in the Book of Joshua.
In Chapter 10, the author relates that during a battle “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed…the sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course” - all as a deomstration of the Lord’s power.
Now we know this to be contra-factual in one critical way: the flawed cosmology of the ancient Jews, who believed the sun to be a disk moving across the dome of heaven above a flat and stationery earth. We know that if such an event occurred, it must have been the earth that stopped rotating for a day, because it is the earth;’ rotation that gives the sun the APPEARANCE of movement.
Science indicates very strongly that cataclysm would follow such a cessation of rotation - we’d almost immediately lose our atmosphere, which would dissipate into empty space, and those living creatures who didn’t asphyxiate immediately would have been fried by the UV radiation from the now unflitered fury of the sun’s rays.
Such an observation does not deter the believer, but the believer’s faith does not negate the validity of the science. Surely the Author of creation can suspend its laws at will, freeze the movement of the earth and at the same time prevent catacylsm from happening (and by the way allow a Bible to be written which misstates the physical nature of the event).
But both sides make mistakes in such a case. The scientist who says ir never happened because we are still here is a bad scientist; a good one would say “there is no observable, testable evidence that it happened, and it defies the laws which we have demonstrated the universe operates under.” Period.
The believer who says it did happen and I can prove it with science is likewise a fool; the conviction that such an event did happen rests in the ineffable, in the believer’s faith that there is a God and that he did in fact do such a thing.
The final word in this installment should belong to jesus, who really dismissed the whole problem in a phrase or two. You recall the doubting Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection unless as he said (apparently sardonically) he could put is fingers in the nail holes and his hand in the wound from the spear - a real rationalist, if ever there was one. Well, you know the story - Jesus shows up, and so on. He lieves Thomas with the words in the 20th chapter of john, “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Christ is not negating the rational; he is simply and powerfully assrting that faith transcends it.
But high school science in a secular society - one in which there are many religions and scriptures and even widely differeing understandings of the Bible - cannot address the conceptions of one group’s conviction of transcendant faith; it must limit itself ( and limit is a key word here) to the rational scientists realm of observable and describable phenomeona.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/2/2005 @ 7:14 pm
And a few more thoughts…
It is the very discreteness - the utter separateness - of the spheres of religion, science, and philosophy that gives them their value. Where scientists (including evolutionists and Big Bangers) attempt first to describe and second to explain the phenomens of the natural world, never do they even attempt to explain the WHY of any of it. This just isn’t in their province at all.
The quest to find meaning in the physical reality in which we live - the universe and its size and its origins, our complexities and consciousnesses and emotions - that quest belongs in the realm of religious belief, which unlike science CAN take into account the non-rational and ineffable experiences of truth and reality that most of us have.
Geology can explain to us how a forested and snow-capped range of moutains came into being, but it can neither describe its beauty to us or explain why we find it beautiful. Geology cannot address the sense many of us have that such an aspect of creation and the thoughts and feelings it engenders in many of us is one of the ways that God communicates to us - in the words of the poet Whitman speaking of grass but in fact about all creation -
“Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropped,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?”
Such a sublime idea - that the Lord’s creation in its beauty is a sign to us to inquire who its author is!
But such a thought isn’t science, never can be - and never should be.
In trying to justify religious belief by equating it with or pinning it to scientific inquiry, you are doing the oddly perverse thing of limiting religion to the sphere of science. In trying to replace science with faith, or marry them, you are denigrating the very value of the most fundamental virtue of Christian belief - the faith that is a gift from God and leads us to John 3:16.
Take an extra example or two, apart from the problems that scientist Galileo encountered mentioned above.
Of the many, many biblical passages that seem at odds with science (salt pillars, seas parting, New Testament resurrections, and so on), the easiest example occurs in the Book of Joshua.
In Chapter 10, the author relates that during a battle “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed…the sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course” - all as a deomstration of the Lord’s power.
Now we know this to be contra-factual in one critical way: the flawed cosmology of the ancient Jews, who believed the sun to be a disk moving across the dome of heaven above a flat and stationery earth. We know that if such an event occurred, it must have been the earth that stopped rotating for a day, because it is the earth;’ rotation that gives the sun the APPEARANCE of movement.
Science indicates very strongly that cataclysm would follow such a cessation of rotation - we’d almost immediately lose our atmosphere, which would dissipate into empty space, and those living creatures who didn’t asphyxiate immediately would have been fried by the UV radiation from the now unflitered fury of the sun’s rays.
Such an observation does not deter the believer, but the believer’s faith does not negate the validity of the science. Surely the Author of creation can suspend its laws at will, freeze the movement of the earth and at the same time prevent catacylsm from happening (and by the way allow a Bible to be written which misstates the physical nature of the event).
But both sides make mistakes in such a case. The scientist who says ir never happened because we are still here is a bad scientist; a good one would say “there is no observable, testable evidence that it happened, and it defies the laws which we have demonstrated the universe operates under.” Period.
The believer who says it did happen and I can prove it with science is likewise a fool; the conviction that such an event did happen rests in the ineffable, in the believer’s faith that there is a God and that he did in fact do such a thing.
The final word in this installment should belong to jesus, who really dismissed the whole problem in a phrase or two. You recall the doubting Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection unless as he said (apparently sardonically) he could put is fingers in the nail holes and his hand in the wound from the spear - a real rationalist, if ever there was one. Well, you know the story - Jesus shows up, and so on. He lieves Thomas with the words in the 20th chapter of john, “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Christ is not negating the rational; he is simply and powerfully assrting that faith transcends it.
But high school science in a secular society - one in which there are many religions and scriptures and even widely differeing understandings of the Bible - cannot address the conceptions of one group’s conviction of transcendant faith; it must limit itself ( and limit is a key word here) to the rational scientists realm of observable and describable phenomeona.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/2/2005 @ 7:17 pm
I’m with you Superhawk brother. I personally do not understand why evolution or the Big Bang theories cannot go hand in hand with Genesis. Even if the two theories could be proven that would not mean there was no God. Neither of them disproves God’s existence! They merely offer an explanation for how it was done and what is wrong with that? Science should not be sacrificed in an attempt to make everything consistent with the bible. The bible after all was an oral story for a long time before written language was established and the story was no doubt told in a manner that could be understood by the people of the time with thier very limited knowledge. God gave us brains. I don’t think he expected us to not use them.
Comment by Carol — 3/2/2005 @ 8:25 pm
Well put superhawk bro. The world being flat in Genesis? I don’t know about that. Without breaking into the Bible (which would leave me here all night)the things that jump out to me are, that God rolled His hands to create the Earth.
You may be right though, it seems like I remember something about “the ends of the Earth”. Then of course there is Paul’s vision of the the sheet coming down from heaven by it’s four corners. The sheet is filled with “unclean” animals and God tells him to eat. A long story short It was God’s way of telling him that all of God’s creation is clean and that every man has the chance for salvation. I dont think that this is talking about the animals of a flat Earth though.
Do you know of any other passages that may be referring to a flat Earth? I would like to look into that.
I would be weary of a “faith gene” as well do you have a link for that?
Comment by Morg — 3/2/2005 @ 8:25 pm
Hi Morg -
Scientists don’t call it a “faith gene” - there’s some term like “credulity inclination” or some such - weak speculation currently, as opposed to the more established existence in the brain of the “altruism sector,” which has been scanned and mapped. I’ll see what I can run down on these tomorrow.
Hebraic cosmology is fascinating. Some it derives from the Rabbinical Books and the Apocrypha that run parallel to the TaNaCh but are never included (the source, for example, of the Lilith story that bridges the two creation accounts in Genesis, one of which implies simultaneous male/female creation and the more familiar rib derivative account).
One interesting aspect is the “cake plate” view of the world, which (round or square, it varies according to author) has as its constant the idea of “sheol” or limitless waters surrounding the two firmaments, one above (the sky with the sun and other heavenly bodies existing right under it, the “top” of the cake plate) and the “firmamaent below,” our indeterminately shaped earth (square? round? but definitely flat, as is clear to the naked eye of any rational observer of the time who was landlocked and could not observe the top of a sailboat appearing first over the horizon of the ocean, which led both Phonecians and Egyptians to understand the sphericality of the earth). That’s what Genesis means in the story of the Great Flood in mentioning that “the foutains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opene” literally. If you think of the cake plate - God opens some apertures in the dome above and from below as well, those fountains of the deep, clearly indicating a welling up of water from below the ocean.
You won’t find direct references to a flat earth because as far as a nomadic herdsman was concerned, seeing was believing and there weren’t any “alternative” “theories” out there. The very insularity of the Jews shielded their cosmology from the adulterating influences of their neighbors in Phonecia and Egypt. (oddly and much later, they weren’t as impervious to influences from the Babylonians, and some of the language of Genesis appears to be derivative of or influenced by Sumerian and Babylonian works, especially “Gilgamesh” in the Flood account).
So, actually, even an attentive reader of the Bible has got to use a bit of that rational method I’ve described above (evidence, in this case Scripture, leading to inference,the Jewish belief in the flatness of the earth).
The Jews were an ordinarily intelligent product of the times: sharp-eyed observers (as nomads they had to be) who noted the world that they saw and inferred shape, size, and age from what they could observe. They weren’t always right (as neither was Galileo), but that doesn’t mean that God was wrong - He just had more important Truths to communicate in the Bible than the scientific details of the nature of the universe. That He left to the flawed human perception of the ancient Jews, and why not? The physical realities of the universe (and I include Big Bang and evolution as almost certainly among these) PALE in comparision to the sublime, ineffable and million times more improtant substance of the Bible, the story of God’s love for humanity.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/3/2005 @ 1:33 am
I’m dying to know if this is really one of my brothers or if there’s a significance other than familial to your nickname (Superhawk’s brother).
Just curious.
Comment by superhawk — 3/3/2005 @ 6:26 am
I feel that, even though this thread is old, I’ve got to weigh in on a couple of points here.
First of all, just for the record, the Big Bang theory can and has been proven to an enormous degree. The Cosmic Background Radiation that’s present all around us and all throughout the universe is a measurable phenomenom using radio telescopes. This background radiation is what’s left over from the Big Bang apprxominately 15 billion years ago.
The proof lies in the temperature of the radiation that lines up exactly with theoretical estimates, extrapolating forward from the time of the great expansion. Other observations from a space probe designed to specifically chart this background radiation shows an extraordinary uniformity to how this radiation is spread throughout the universe; this also, thanks to some pretty sublime mathematics, matches up very well with theory.
In short. with the big bang, you have the numbers matching up with observation. Theory proved end of story. If you want to dispute the big bang, you might as well start an argument over whether or not the sun rises in the west. Ain’t gonna happen.
As for ID’ers Vs. evolution, I’m all for teaching whatever you want your children to learn…as long as you accept the consequences. The children in Japan and Germany, and India, and China are learning biology and the theory of evolution. In 20 years when those countries own the bio-tech factories (the next great wave of the industrial revolution)while our children are sweeping the floors of those factories, just remember that choice.
Comment by superhawk — 3/3/2005 @ 6:47 am
Ah, the wonders of AOL. My note above gets posted twice, but my email to my brother Rick does not get delivered. Go figure.
My brother Superhawk introduced me to this section of Terra Blog through his site, The Rightwing Nuthouse, some weeks ago ina thread on Ward Chruchill. Since then, I have been reading religiously (pun intended).
When I decided to post some comments here, I felt I needed a site-friendly monniker, so I accurately identified myself as Superhawk’s brother (elder, that would be, by a bit more than three years). [So, Superhawk, you couldn’t tell from the highly erudite and amazingly literate style of my posts that it was indeed your brother Jim?!?!]
Apologies for any confusion.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/3/2005 @ 9:07 am
You didn’t mention that I’m the good looking one.
Comment by superhawk — 3/3/2005 @ 9:22 am
>>You didn’t mention that I’m the good looking one.<<
And you didn’t mention that I’m the Last Genuine Liberal in America, one appalled by the New Left Stalinism of what you and your fellow genteel Right of center bloggers in good faith misudentify as “liberal.”
More on that another time, perhaps on your blog. It might amuse your readers to know of the size of our family and the interesting breadth of political belief: we might equally tantalize them with some hints at the identities of several of our prominent and occasionally misunderstood siblings!
Comment by Superhawk Brother — 3/3/2005 @ 11:53 am
So if numbers are the be all and the end all explain evolution by looking at these numbers.
“The successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 10^60, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.”
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10^18 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 10^14 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10^9) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10^18 seconds, there can, therefore, be 10^18/102, or 10^16, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10^14 (10^9) (10^16), or 10^39 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10^60, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10^39 attempts might be successful is only one out of 10^60/10^39, or 10^21.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.”
Source of this document is http://www.icr.org/newsletters/btg/btgnov03.html
Comment by Morg — 3/3/2005 @ 5:25 pm
The math is good but the logic is faulty starting with the premise that a 200-component organism would require 200 mutations successively or that you even start with a 200-component organism. Evolution does not propose this. It begins with the premise of combinations of chemicals that gave rise to carbon-based life form first as a single cell organism-1 component. The complexity of the single cell organism would be based on a combination of proteins. Single cell organisms then give way or rather gave rise to multi-cell organisms, not all of which are the same or which will in turn give rise to the same subset of organisms. Think of it as a tree. they may have the same trunk but different branches. If it were so easy to disprove the evolutionary theory science would have gotten rid it long ago.
Comment by Carol — 3/3/2005 @ 9:27 pm
Impressive numbers, Morg, but disingenuous and betraying either a lack of understanding of the theoretical process or an intent to distort.
Start with one important point. Evolution is demonstrable in several ways; this particular attack is leveleled against the prevailing theory, which is Darwin’s theory of natural selection, predicated INITIALLY on random mutation.
But Darwin’s was actually the second theory of evolution. The first was by French scientist Jean Baptiste Lamarck, who, looking at the clear fossil record of progressively developing life forms, theorized that organisms adapted to changes in environment, and that these changes altered something in their reproductive structure, causing the changes to be passed on to their offspring. This was in about 1802, or roughly fifty years before Gregor Mendel discovered genes.
The existence of genes gave support to the roughly simultaneous offering of the natural selection/random mutation theory of Darwin, because Mendel discovered a mechanism in the reproductive system by which mutation could be passed down. It seemed to discredit Lamarck, whose idea was that evolution seemed “purposeful.”
But problems remained for reasons related to your numbers. Darwin was no fool. He realized that biodiversity and the multiplicity of organisms posed mathematical problems, as did “gaps” in the fossil record. Darwin died realizing that the circle of his theory had not been fully closed.
It was by the recently deceased (and much lameneted - he was an elegant writer) Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who to a degree resurrected a bit of Lamarck, added some of his own, and came up with a concept he termed “punctuated equilibium” - the assertion that evolution was neither purposeful (goodbye Lamarck) nor completely random (goodbye numbers above). Rather, the fossil record indicates that evolution tended to happen rapidly in spurts rather than slowly by random mutation. The likeliest explanation - and one that the geologic record supports - is that these spurts of evolutionary change in short periods tend to follow cataclysmic events, like the Cretaceous Extinction of 65 million years ago when a comet (likely - possible a meteor) struck the earth off of what is now the Yucatan, shaped the Gulf of Mexico - and wiped out 90% of the living things on the surface of the earth. The dramatic change in the world’s climate lated for millenia and stimulated an enormous spurt in the development, spread, and ultimately dominance of warm-blooded creatures, including mammals.
So - Gould gives a bit of credence to Lamarck, in a way. Punctuated equilibrium asserts that mutations are not random at all, but rather occur in accelerated spurts in response to environmental changes.
Your numbers are predicated on complete randomness, which does not apply to the theory of evolution as it is currently understood and taught.
But numbers are fun to play with. I’d relate the “infinite number of monkeys” theorem to help explain some facts about the cosmos, but we’ll save that for another time.
Let’s stick with some simple numbers, available in the last few years as the human genome has been fully mapped.
All human beings are descended from a common ancestor (good so far” likely one female (several males) whom biologists conveniently refer to as “Eve” (a nice touch, and not intended as ironic or disrespectful).
The genome of every human being on the planet is 98% identical to that of chimpanzees. Put another way, humans and chimps share 98% of the same DNA. The per cent drops to about 94% of the same DNA when people are compared to lemurs, a more primnitive primate than chimps. Surprising to many, we share about 75% of the same DNA with mice, a yet simpler form of mammal, but we also share around 60% of the same DNA as many fish, dropping to around 50% with lobsters.
I’m sure you won’t accept this as indicative of what it clearly points to - a common ancestor in distant past time of all living creatures - if only because biblical fundamentalists assert that no such great time exists (despite evidence).
Maybe, however, those numbers can help you to understand why those who attempt to use rational science rather than the intuitive and spiritual epistemologies such as I discussed above tend to believe that observable evidence (and the gene information is current, observed, and incontrovertible) points to the inference of the previously predicated theories of evolution.
Just a few thoughts on the topic!
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/4/2005 @ 2:22 am
And again, very well put superhawk bro. And like I said all of this sounds all well and good in theory but, evolution (IMO) is still unable to be proven. How come then none of us have ever seen of any organsm mutating from one form another? What then are we humans supposed to be mutating into? Is this as far as we go?
You see natural selection, that is proven. That theory can be supported by experiment. Random mutation…not so much.
And nothing can still account for the “sixth senses” that humans have. To me…these senses are more like gifts that are not shared with lobsters, or even monkeys, for that matter.
On the other side of the coin, animals can tell of natural disasters before they happen. To me that seems like a useful tool that we should not have “evolved” out of.
You bring up interesting points, however, at least you seem to actually believe what you are talking about and not just following some blind ideology.
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 10:35 am
Morg…”10 billion years of earth history?” The sun is only about 5 billion years old which would make it pretty difficult for the earth to have 10 billion years of history.
Secondly, you’re confusing cosmology with evolution. The processes that lead to star and galaxy formation are observable phenomenom even today. Supernovae, galactic collisions, hydrogen clouds (like the beautiful Horsehead nebulae) are proof that the processes that created the expanding universe as we know it today have been going on for at least 12 billion and perhaps as long as 16 billion years.
As for the evolution of life, my brother makes some interesting points regarding Stephen Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibrium theory. I would add that these catostrophic events–either extraterrestial-such as comet and meteor impacts or terrestial, like the massive, sudden flooding that apparently carved the Grand Canyon in less than 20,000 years or the “supervolcanos” whose eruptions were capable of blocking sunlight for a period of months causing quick and massive die offs, has immediate effects on evolution as those species that could adapt quickly lived and those that couldn’t died.
Comment by superhawk — 3/4/2005 @ 10:44 am
I like your style and your probing questions, Morg. They demonstrate to me that you are firm in your convictions based on your own thoughts and studies of scripture and Intelligent Design theory, buit also that you are willing to engage with the other side (represented here on your blog by Superhawk and his hapless brother) to excahnge perspectives.
If you don’t mind me saying, your posts seem to me indicative of that kind of knowing that is experiential and intuitive, as I believe all religious knowledge is. It is not that religion is or need be contra-rational; rather, I believe that it transcends rationality and goes to those parts of our experience that are certain but intuitive.
I thought of an example last night that might illustrate the difrerence between what we know from science and what we know from religion.
The law of probability states that when we flip a coin, the chances are always 50-50 that the coin will turn up as heads. That’s always and every time, because a coin has only two sides and one of them will always turn up. Because the flip is random, the chance will never be more or less than 50% that heads will turn up.
Now suppose we have flipped the coin and heads has come up nine times in a row. We know - we just KNOW - that eventually tails will come up, that the streak of flipping and getting heads must eventually end.
But on the tenth flip, the chance that heads will appear remains exactly and unalterably 50%. Statistically in randomness, the chance is always equal.
Rationality informs us of the law or probability; experience and intution lead us to the conclusion that tails will come up at some point.
These are not oppositional premises. Though the 50-50 chance is absolute and irrefutable, equally undeniable and true is our certainty that tails will appear and our sense that the longer the heads streak continues, the “more likely” it is that the next flip will be tails - not defensible logically or rationally but intuitively “true” nonetheless.
So also with our knowledge of religion and science. The spiritual knowledge of religion is faith based and intuitive; it does not depend upon, spring from, or fit into the rational and observable, as I tried to illustrate with the Joshua observation above.
That’s why many of us are quite cheerful about mulling over theories of evolution, Big Bang, DNA, and the like, and feel that none of these threaten or even touch the sphere of our religious faith.
Comment by Superhawk Brother — 3/4/2005 @ 11:43 am
So now we come full circle.
The point of my post was, that the theories of evolution (random mutation) as well as the Big Bang can spark some very interesting and inquisitive dialogue.
So then imagine, if you will, that the preceeding text was from the eyes of a thirteen year old child. You guys being the science teachers and myself being the parent.
Listening to you, they hear a well-educated and well-spoken figure of secular authority. Up until this point of the school year you guys have discussed some very cool stuff about atoms, natural science, anatomy, etc. All of which is something that the child can see in action, hear or feel. The child doesn’t know you personally or your personal shortcomings (that we all have) to some kids you are the prime example of men (guessing/assuming) who have took control of their own lives and are at the forefront of society.
Then my child comes home to me, the disiplinarian. The one who says “No” to everything that they think is fun and that I think is dangerous. True, I have equipped my child with the armor of Faith and they try to stand dtrong in it whenever possible. But as we have seen in this discussion, I am a grown adult well educated in biblical study and I can barely convince myself that you guys are wrong (IMO). How will a thirteen year old child handle a debate from someone who to them is on the same level as a boss in the workforce? Would they even bring up the debate? I do know that there will come a time when the child will ask “How can we be sure there is a God if there was no God needed to create the world?”
Undoubtedly most people say that is when it is time for parent to step in and raise their child the way that they would have them go by giving them instruction and explaining our beliefs.
So what can the working class disiplinarian dad say that is going to convince their child that even though there appaers to be “proof” of “scientific” creation we are still not free from accountability to a higher power.
Basically the science of creation cuts too close to the bone of the main reason that we are supposed to love God and that is because he created us. Being a christian is alot harder than not, and as we all know kids tend to take the easy way out.
I am not saying that this series of events will happen to all kids but if it happens to one then that is too many. The public schools should not be in a position to offer children what can look like an “alternative to God”.
The theory of evolution will always be around and that is fine. That is what makes this country great is that we can enjoy discussions on our differing opinions without beheading each other. But children are not as capable as adults of determining that what the teachers are teaching is not undermining their parent’s teaching. So I say that the theory of evolution does not belong in schools (at least without it being debatable).
I would love to hear your view on that.
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 1:51 pm
Summing up my last post, we are asking children to make an informed decision of great magnitude too early in their lives. This should be the parents’ responsibility, it is our job to be sure that they stay clear of stuff that we think is dangerous to them spiritually or physically.
Cheers!
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 1:57 pm
The “evolution-creation” debate is very involved. It occurs on many fronts, because “evolutionists” think the concept is a “pervasive truth.”
But their whole story is fraudulent. There is no “natural selection” mechanism that favors a partially developed feature (eye, wing, ear, the venom of a snake, ad infinitum). Plants need ants to open their blossoms, bees to pollinate them, animals to distribute their seeds, worms to keep the soil from compacting, etc. There is so much interdependency of life that it would have all had to “evolve” at the same point in time, at the same place on the globe, for life as we know it to start.
And, of course, if a gerbil (or any other animal, fish, or what-have-you) came into being, it would have to be complemented in short by another example of the same species, but of the other gender, at the same place on the globe. (The definition of the term “species” is that members of a species can reproduce with one another. So if a new species “evolved,” the brand-new “whatever” would be without a mate until another “whatever” evolved & showed up.) Some forms of life have life spans measured in days.
One of my professors at MIT casually mentioned that the relatively brief Cambrian period (no more than 15 million years, possibly only 5 million years) spawned every phyla, while the pre-Cambrian period (we’re talking about fossils) had none? “Evolutionists” claim life could have spontaneously come into being in as little as 15 billion years. Then he said, “…of course, that means the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.” Until then, I had “swallowed” the propaganda. That comment started me critically looking at the “evolution” propaganda.
Life could not have come into being the way Darwin theorized & Darwin himself realized that. He hoped that scientists around the world would be able to “correct” the deficiencies in his theory. But they didn’t. They were so enthusiastic, because it freed them from any allegiance to God, that they took the idea & ran with it. For generations, they have insisted that nothing else be taught.
There is no evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, “evolution” is a religion. It must be accepted on faith. But “evolutionists” call it “science” & claim “Creationism” is “religion.” There is more evidence for “Creationism” than for “evolution.”
Years ago, when I went to that week-long ICR seminar in Minnesota, Dr. John Morris, his dad, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Ken Cumming, etc., taught classes morning, afternoon & evening. At that time, Dr. Henry was President of ICR. He is now at least 80 & John is President. ICR is one of the foremost “creationist” schools. It also conducts what amounts to a “missionary” operation, telling the public that not all “scientists” believe in “evolution.”
You can check it out at www.icr.org. If you want, you can sign up for their monthly “Acts & Facts” online newsletter, which has articles about research they are doing, events in the “Creation – evolution” debate, etc. If you read “Acts & Facts” (including “Back to Genesis,” etc.) for a few years, you will begin to grasp it, I am sure. These guys are scientists, but they write in layman’s terms. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand what they are saying. The whole picture is sort of like a big jigsaw puzzle. You can pick up one piece at a time, & you can probably find “nuggets” there for your blog.
One big “bone of contention” is over the difference between “micro” & “macro evolution.” If you carefully breed chickens to have more white meat, or corn to have more tender kernels, etc., you have used “micro-evolution” to develop a new strain of the same species. The new chickens will be able to reproduce with other chickens; the DNA will be the same, etc. “Evolutionists” claim a new species can come into being that way, by expanding the concept of “micro evolution” to “macro evolution.” But no one has ever seen an example of “macro evolution.” They are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
Another big “bone of contention” is over the age of Creation. According to the Bible, Creation is probably less than 20,000 years old. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the Earth, our sun, etc., are cooling down. There are a number of reasons for this, but major among them is that – in effect – the sun is burning itself up. As it does that, it literally gets smaller & the energy it emits diminishes. The amount of heat received by the Earth from the sun, even 20,000 years ago, would have been considerably more than we are receiving today.
One scientist pointed out that even the Earth’s magnetic field strength, which is diminishing about 50% every 1400 years, would have raised the temperature of the Earth & made life here untenable 100,000 years ago. A magnetic field has energy. When scientists perform research at temperatures close to “absolute zero,” they have to demagnetize the test equipment & test samples, to get the temperature down those last few degrees. Anyway, there is “no way” that life could have existed here even a million years ago, much less 15 billion years ago. All this supports the Biblical story of Creation, while refuting the Theory of Evolution.
Another link that might be of interest is the Intelligent Design Network, http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/. These are people who, without mentioning God, point out – as Romans does – that Creation speaks very eloquently about its Designer.
Sorry, but this is all the time I have right now. Morg, good job, young man. It is indeed our job as good parents to “train up a child in the way he should go”.
Comment by Pete — 3/4/2005 @ 3:12 pm
Thanks for the post Pete. I was starting to feel all alone there for a minute.
I actually visit icr quite frequently. If you notice I used Dr. Morris’ mathematical equation for the “improbability of evolution” in the main post. Thanks for bringing up the points that you mentioned though, and I hope that you will come back and post some more as I am sure that the debate is far from over.
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 4:15 pm
That’s my dad, Morg. Every now and then he pops in and says something. Makes me feel good that he’s reading. The original scientists were creationists…the idea that religion and the idea of creation don’t mix is ridiculous. Science has always gone hand in hand with the Bible. The founders of modern science were all creationists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo and others. Their understanding was that there is a logical, Divine Creator and this gave them the foundation to look for the natural laws of His creation, and to try to think His thoughts after Him. We do the same today as we recognize that we live in a logically designed universe. The idea that what we see around us happened to explode itself (Big Bang) via random chance? Creationists, standing with science, would contend that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Comment by Cao — 3/4/2005 @ 4:46 pm
Ah, so I see that smart parenting does pay off.
Cao your post reminds me of a Einstein quote that I had nearly forgotten about.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
-Albert Einstein
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 6:37 pm
That brings to mind one of my most favorite poems:
Who Thou art I know not,
But this much I know:
Thou hast set the Pleiades
In a silver row;
Thou hast sent the trackless winds
Loose upon their way;
Thou hast reared a colored wall
‘Twixt the night and day;
Thou hast made the flowers to bloom
And the stars to shine;
Hid rare gems of richest ore
In the tunneled mine;
But chief of all Thy wondrous works,
Supreme of all Thy plan,
Thou hast put an upward reach
In the heart of Man.
Harry Kemp, “God the Architect,” 1948
Comment by Cao — 3/4/2005 @ 6:58 pm
Would it surprise you that 80% of cosmologists believe in God?
Doesn’t surprise me. Right now, these scientists believe they know what happened at the Big Bang two millionths of a second after it began.
The overwhelming majority of them believe some force prior to those two millionths of a second initiated the process that led to the Big Bang.
As long as intelligent design remains an article of faith I have no problems with it. But if it purports to replace cosmology or biology, I’ll have to object.
Comment by superhawk — 3/4/2005 @ 7:30 pm
I’m sorry Pete, but I’m going to have to call you out on your 20,000 year age for the earth.
Radiocarbon dating has been around since the 1960’s. It uses a gaseous diffusion method to measure the decay of atoms in a formerly living thing. There is northing “theoretical” about this method of dating. It is as certain a way of finding how old a living thing was at its death (within a range that becomes less accurate the farther back you go)as finding a calendar with the bones.
This is because God gave human beings a brain. We used this brain to discover that atoms have half-lives. And the rate of decay of the Carbon atom into the isotope Carbon 14 is as regular and as certain as the sun rising every morning.
As I mentioned, this method loses accuracy the older a bone is…about 5% for every 100,000 years. Charcoal from fires burned by Neanderthals in France for instance, have been dated using this method at around 45,000 years ago.
So much for th earth being less than 20,000 years old.
Ice core samples from Greenland go back around 80,000 years to the beginning of this last ice age. Knowing that Cao lives in the same area of the world that I do, if you were to go back 50,000 years there’s be several trillion tons of ice over our heads. The glaciers that covered North America had not even begun to recede.
This is physical evidence not dependent on “theory” that proves the earth is much older than 20,000. And Solar physicists, by observing other stars like our sun, have been able to calculate the amount of hydrogen it would have taken to ignite our sun, the amount that we have now, and the rate at which the hydrogen turns into helium. This gives us an age of the sun of about 5 billion years.
And thanks to the Hubbell Space Telescope, we can actually observe not only star formation, but the formation of planets as well. This process takes tens of millions of years to occur and more tens of millions-perhaps hundreds of millions- for a planet to cool down enough for life to develop.
There is not one reputable scientist who says that the earth is 20,000 years old. Not one. The physical evidence is so overwhelming that the earth (and life itself) are billions of years old that to believe otherwise flies in the face of common sense.
Comment by superhawk — 3/4/2005 @ 7:53 pm
According to the bible the earth is not more than 6000 years old. However, after reading these comments I get the distinct impression that everyone agrees to a certain extent that there is room for God in science. The debate going on here is well beyond any discussion that would take place in a eight grade class of 13 year olds. Schools are not teaching the theory of evolution as an alternate theory to God. If it should happen that upon earning that there is a theory of evolution, your child comes home with questions about how this theory aligns with the bible I would think you would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with your child on the place of science and religion in their lives, stressing that the two need not be exclusive of one another. Normally such a discussion would not come up unless the parent introduced it and children are much more receptive when they introduce the topic. I shouldn’t worry toomuch about the influence of teachers on your children either. Some can be influential but most never come close to he influence of a parent. More importantly, if the “missing link” were discovered tomorrow that would not be indicative that God did not exist. It would merely give us a better understanding of how he pulled off the miracle of creation.
Comment by Carol — 3/4/2005 @ 8:00 pm
My point exactly (in reverse order obviously), but unfortunately for us it has already started. I would not object if the theory of evolution was only taught to adults. I wouldn’t like it but at least then I could rest well knowing that everyone hearing that message is an adult fully capable of drawing their own conclusions.
I have to believe that we lose nothing by not teaching it but risk a great deal when we do teach it.
You see superhawk, unfortuantely not all cosmologists and biologists are as open minded and as willing to debate like you and your brother. The same can be said on both sides of the table but we are not in positions of influence, and if we were it would be illegal for us to speak on the topic of God the Creator.
Cao, I would be interested in knowing how your parents handled this when you were in school. Assuming of course that you went to public school while evolution was being taught in a comparable manner of todays teaching.
Comment by Morg — 3/4/2005 @ 8:04 pm
“We like to say the big bang is nothing special in the history of our universe,” said Sean Carroll, an Assistant Professor in Physics at the University of Chicago.
Carroll thinks the “big bang” could be a normal event in the natural evolution of the universe–one that will happen repeatedly over incredibly vast time scales as the universe expands, empties out and cools off.
Pardon the pun, but Carroll’s “nothing special” idea is really “nothing special.” Naturalistic science is firmly committed to the idea that everything can be explained in terms of nature–i.e., Naturalism. A corollary of Naturalism is that there’s nothing really special about the cosmos, particularly Earth. To believe otherwise is to take one step toward the unforgivable notion of “special” creation–AAARRRGGGHHH!!
In fact, the “nothing special” imperative goes way back in the history of science. A fairly recent example is the problem of explaining the “red shift” that occurs in starlight reaching Earth. This red shift apparently happens because light emitted from retreating objects is shifted to a lower frequency–that is toward the red end of the light spectrum—the same way the horn from a departing train is heard as a lower frequency.
BUT if all the starlight reaching Earth is shifted toward a lower frequency, then one conclusion seems inescapable–the Earth must be at the center of something–and in that respect, must be something special–double AAARRRGGGHHH!!
Needless to say, this “red shift” phenomenon is a huge problem for naturalistic scientists–that is why the “Inflation Theory” is so important.
The Inflation Theory simply says the entire universe is expanding or inflating such that every object is retreating from every other object. That means all the stars of the universe appear to be retreating from one’s vantage point no matter where an observer stands. So even though the earth appears to be at the center of a cosmic explosion, it is–after all–nothing special. [Whew! Close call for naturalism!]
Of course, the Inflation Theory is intimately tied to the “big bang theory”–note that “big bang” is in lower case (vice upper) to indicate that it too is “nothing special.” And Carroll’s theory attempts to do just that. It tries to explain the big bang as a routine occurrence and certainly no indication there’s anything special about the world we live in.
So the next time you look around at the wonders of this creation, consider whether you and everything you see are really “nothing special.”
Or could it be science is so blind to the obvious because it serves Naturalism, a deeply flawed philosophy?
–Bill Brewer
Comment by Bill Brewer — 3/4/2005 @ 8:12 pm
I have to call you out on the radiocarbon dating theory, hawk.
That field has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late ’40’s. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.
The rest is here.
A very strange grouping of facts emerged (known as the “dust on the moon problem), using a figure published in 1960 of 14,300,000 tons per year as the meteoritic dust influx rate to the earth, creationists have argued that the thin dust layer on the moon’s surface indicates that the moon, and therefore the earth and solar system, are young. Furthermore, it is also often claimed that before the moon landings there was considerable fear that astronauts would sink into a very thick dust layer, but subsequently scientists have remained silent as to why the anticipated dust wasn’t there. Now that’s the moon.
As far as the age of the earth itself, it is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth’s surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year.” This amounts to 14 x 1019 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 1018 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5 x 1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5-billion-year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world!
There is not the slightest sign of such a dust layer anywhere of course. On the moon’s surface it should be at least as thick but the astronauts found no sign of it (before the moon landings, there was considerable fear that the men would sink into the dust when they arrived on the moon, but no comment has apparently ever been made by the authorities as to why it wasn’t there as anticipated).
Even if the earth is only 5,000,000 years old, a dust layer of over 2 inches should have accumulated. Lest anyone say that erosional and mixing processes account for the absence of the 182-foot meteoritic dust layer, it should be noted that the composition of such material is quite distinctive, especially in its content of nickel and iron. Nickel, for example, is a very rare element in the earth’s crust and especially in the ocean. Pettersson estimated the average nickel content of meteoritic dust to be 2.5 per cent, approximately 300 times as great as in the earth’s crust. Thus, if all the meteoritic dust layer had been dispersed by uniform mixing through the earth’s crust, the thickness of crust involved (assuming no original nickel in the crust at all) would be 182 x 300 feet, or about 10 miles!
Since the earth’s crust (down to the mantle) averages only about 12 miles thick, this tells us that practically all the nickel in the crust of the earth would have been derived from meteoritic dust influx in the supposed (5 x 109 year) age of the earth!”
The rest here.
Comment by Cao — 3/4/2005 @ 9:09 pm
I miss a couple of days and find a welter of well-written posts, and two of my reply posts have apparently disappeared en route from AOL to your blog into a cyber miasma that may well be composed of moon dust….
Let me raise a point or two here, acknowledging that my brother Superhawk and carol have fleshed out and gone beyond some of my points about both scientific evidence and the non-conflict between scripture as properly understood and science as properly understood.
One of the advantages that the nasty scientists (and by this I mean the dismissive scoffers, not those like Einstein and Newton who found no conflict in their belief in the divine with their non-creationist understanding of the universe) have over you who are IDers is that the scientists at least understand and correctly state the basic priinciples of your arguments - that the world and/or universe came into being ex nihilo and ab verbum sometime between 6 and 20 thousand years ago, and that the Bible is and is intended to be an accurate and scientific rendering of these evnts (forgetting of course the fact that no dates appear in the Bible), and that all species arose in Biblical order and Biblical time and did not evolve one into another.
Creationists frquently (and including in this thread), however, often misstate or appear to misunderstand the science related to both cosmology and evolution.
In a well-argued post above, Pete observes that what he terms “micro-evolution” is happening all the time, mostly as we can see it by design. That would be crossbreeding and breeding for characteristics. At the most primitive level, this starts with humans breeding docile wolves as companions and coming up with dogs, in recent history (several thousand years), runs through all the agricultural hybrids (most of our roses, all of our edible apples, and darn near everything else we see that grows), and with bioengineering literally creates new species from genetic material (run down the street to the market and see the wondrous and infamous broccoflower).
Pete next observes that no one has observed what he terms “macro-evolution,” or the natural creation of a new species, and of course he’s right.
But evidence for the ease with which this does happen and does continue to happen is all around us. You just need to remember what genetics is all about, and this in a manner unrelated to evolution per se.
As I did with the Joshua story above, I’d like to take a basic story we all know to illustrate a point.
Down syndrome occurs when an extra copy of chromosome #21 of the 46 that every human cell has replicates itself in the egg and sperm in the meiosis following conception. This chromosome replicates itself during the subsequent mitosis that produces emrbyo, fetus, baby to the point that a newborn with Down syndrome has that extra#21 in nearly every cell of its body.
Now the only demonstrable risk factor for Down syndrome is the age of the mother at birth.Of women having babies at age 26, the rate of Down syndrome births is 1 in 1433 live births; at 36, 1 in 412 live births; at 45,
a shocking 1 in 40 live births, or 2 1/2%. This suggests an alteration in the chromosomal structure of the gametes, female and/or male, during the course of ONE lifetime (hurray for Lamarck!).
Now, we all know how sadly devastating Down syndrome often is and its dramatic effects on the person, both physically and mentally. But - and here’s the point - a Down syndrome child itself has an altered genetic structure - though Down syndrome boys it is believed cannot father a child, a Down syndrome girl can have a baby, and the chance is 50/50 that the offspring will also have Down syndrome - it becomes a dominant characteristic, more likely to be passed on than blue eyes or blond hair.
(And one poster above misstates the nature of mutations - a randomly mutated male does NOT have to find a randomly mutated female to pass the characteristic along; if the characteristic is dominant, it will be continued by a non-mutated female of the same species).
So why don’t we have more people with Down syndrome - whose physical characteristics and altered genetic structure would qualify them as a sub-species?
Well, the D word crops up - Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Down syndrome is not a survival strategy characteristic - for a variety of obvious reasons, most Down syndrome individuals do not reproduce, in nature because they do not live long enough and in society because we do not allow them to.
Now Down syndrome is a “negative” characteristic; it does not favor survival. But the same possibility of an altered gene structure for a characteristic that FAVORS survival - let’s say, fast-twitch muscles which enable people to run hugely faster than individuals without such muscles) - can equally be passed on in a single generation and spread quickly and efficiently as members of a population with such a survival advantage rapidly replace memebers without the advantage - and by rapidly I mean within the space of recorded time and at times within one person’s lifetime. The average Japanese male’s height has increased by an astounding 3 to 5″ since WWII, and though this is possibly more linked to dietary changes in part, the charteristic is being passed along in generations (Lamarck rears his discredited head again).
Let’s put it in another way. Say we have a fish (one of trillions in the seas) whose genetic structure mutates his fin and its bones into a dominant gene deformity in the shape of a foot. That such a random deformity can occur is clear, as with Down syndrome; that it can seem purposeful, as in the case of constantly mutating bacteria and viruses, is also clear.
If that fin/foot or gill/lung deformity is reproductively strategic, then Mr. Foot-Fin Fish will live long enough to produce many little Foot-Fin Fishes. If one of them marries a member of the Gill-Lung family….
Well, that’s the way you’d oversimplify it for a child, which brings me to Morg’s heartfelt post above.
He articulates a parent’s concern that the authority-figure nature of a teacher - and as a good Christian, he has taught his child to respect authority - could confuse the child if that teacher is insensitive (and many are; I know, as I am a thity-year plus teacher) or worse, a scoffer.
Morg points out, correctly I think, that it may not be enough to rely on family values and family reinforcement of belief to counteract the negative influence on what you want your child’s thinking to be.
Well, Carol points out that both family and church need to “arm…with righteousness” the children to foster their belief. And you can always instruct them that they are learning a version of the truth that you do not subscribe to.
When children are old enough for high school biology, they should be old enough to understand the mediaeval church’s concept of apologetics - learning your faith so thoroughly that you could refute arguments against it. Now, one of the essential steps in the training of a Medieval apologist (remember Johann Eck, whom Rome sent to debate Luther?) was to study intensely the arguments of the opposition, preferably from a member of that opposition. Think of it: wouldn’t it be better for a child to learn about, say, Judaism from a Rabbi than from a priest or pastor? Wouldn’t the child’s understanding of Judaism be all the more accurate and complete?
That’s how we were raised in Catholic schools in the 50s and 60s - to understand areguments against our faith from those who despised it, so as to answer them. In a later, more ecumenical time, when I was in university (religious affliation), we studied contrasting religions, philosophies, and political and scientific throties from their proponents. I learned theolgy of war and peavce from a Menonite,Judaism from an Orthodx Rabbi, Hiduism from an indian guru, and more. These had no fundamental effect on my own faith, except perhaps to enhance it because I learned it in the context of contrast with what others believed.
As I said above, a secular society, a pluralistic society, cannot for the good of us all permit any religious orthodoxy (interestingly, Greek for “correct thinking”) to gain sway in our public institutions, lest we face a time when our own beliefs become the “minority” and are dismissed or repressed by an unelnlightened majority.
The reason that that is NOT happening now is because most empahtically and as I have labored to point out in posts above what we call science is not religion and what we call religion is not science. Theor spheres are separate and do not, and I believe should not, intersect.
More than a mouthful here - and I really want to talk about moon dust and red shift - but I fear that as a liberal intruder into Morg’s blog (and I thank him for his courteous entertaining of my rambling posts), I may have taken up too much space already.
I’d be happy to take the conversation elsewhere if anyone has a suggestion.
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/5/2005 @ 1:24 pm
Superhawk, Riiiiiight! And that same radiocarbon dating finds the petrified wood at Mt. St. Helens (now 25 years old) to be thousands of years old too. The problem with radiocarbon dating (as with so many other things) is in the assumptions. For one, check the ICR site on radiocarbon dating – . It lists a number of papers on the fallacies of radiocarbon dating.
You might also check the RATE (Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth) Project – or http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp, etc. Scientists from all over the world are working together to test the use of radioisotopes for dating samples.
Science is supposed to examine the available evidence, postulate theories, critique those theories, revise the theories, etc., to arrive at reasonable answers. When someone finds a flaw in a scientific theory, the theory is supposed to be withdrawn & revised. But that doesn’t happen with the Theory of Evolution. Its proponents just ignore the problems & forge ahead, insisting that nothing else be taught.
There are any number of flaws in the Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is the age of the Earth. As you say, God gave us a brain. Don’t allow yourself to be brainwashed by the anti-God crowd. If you keep an open mind, you might learn something & even gain a little common sense.
Comment by Pete — 3/5/2005 @ 2:41 pm
By no means am I as well educated as you guys on the preceeding two posts but I want to see if I grasped something right from superhawk’s bro. The analogy that you used with DS, was that the DS gene is passed much in the same way as random mutation works (correct me if I am wrong). The main difference I see is that people with DS could freely reproduce for a thousand years but they would never produce a “new” species, as you implied with the fin-foot fish parable.
And then if we are able to cross breed into different species I still don’t think that 5 billion years is enough as pointed out in the improbability of evolution formula above.
Again back to my point, you have to have faith that these things are true, because we can only speculate. None of this can be recreated in a laboratory, or debated to a definite end.
Don’t worry I welcome liberals. What fun is debating with people who feel the same as me.
I think that it is safe for me to speak for Pete when I say that we would love to hear the moon dust rebuttal.
Cheers!
Comment by Morg — 3/5/2005 @ 4:43 pm
As far as I can recall, Morg, I think it was I who brought up the moondust theory. But that isn’t the only thing that indicates that the universe is young. There’s also the amount of dust in the atmosphere–there’s far too much if the universe is as old as the evolutionists say.
If you add up the fact that the sun was too hot at the time we were ‘evolving species’ for the earth to support life and many other things, there is only one conclusion you can come up with. That is, if you put any brain power behind it and approach it with an open mind. It would seem people are resistant to the idea that there is divine order to the universe, but I find it comforting.
And the evolutionists have gone to great lengths to debunk the dust on the moon/earth theory, too. They’re not interested in real scientific evidence and data that debunk the theory of evolution; they’re more interested in taking the wind out of the sails of the creationists in order to promulgate the ridiculous notion of the “big bang”, as dad pointed out.
Either way, as you said previously, Morg, it is a “religion”, as it has to be taken purely on faith.
The fact that science has been “dumbed down” in the schools (and beyond) in order for our children (and grownups) to swallow it easier is problematic for young people with faith in God who are raising children these days. What’s more, it’s a problem for our society as a whole.
Comment by Cao — 3/5/2005 @ 6:50 pm
My apologies to the lady, I just remebered it being posted by someone far brighter that myself.
Comment by Morg — 3/5/2005 @ 7:19 pm
Brief reply to Morg -
You are correct about what I was trying to say about DS. The point related to evolution is that one generation can produce a significant mutation from the accidental (or “random,” if you will) mutation of one gene (of 46), and that this mutation produces significant (and in this example, devastating)changes in the organism in one generation - and that these changes can be dominant, as in the case of the genetic mutation that creates DS - meaning that they can be passed on to offspring, in the case of DS 50% of the time.
Now this is observable, testable, and provable in clinical circumstances and has the weight of worldwide statistical information to support it in the presnt and over a couple of generations (from whence I got the DS/maternal age statistics above).
Now, you’re excellent point - intuitively true, as I’ve alluded to above - is that in a thousand generations, even with reproduction, the DS gene-affliected humans will not produce a new species. Since no one lives a thousand generations, as Cao points out implicitly, evolution cannot be proven because the data related to it cannot thus be observed, measured, and tested.
Well, that isn’t quite entirely so. The profound similarities between the genetic structures of, for example, humans and chimpanzees (if not the (98.5 %identicality as widely thought, still not less than an astouding 95%) [and I’m including two links to a biological and creationist take on the question below) suggest that a new species can arise from an older one in just such a way as I’ve described with the DS case above.
Morg suggests that a thousand generation will not produce a new species - and it wouldn’t if the DS alteration became frozen in place. My point is that if ONE genetic mutation can produce such dramatic results so quickly, the ongoing process of random mutation would quickly produce a multiplicty of variations - so much so that in a thousand generations you would mathematically have so many changes produced that you would end up with large numbers of new species who at some point would not share enough DNA (mutations continuing apace) with either the original common ancestor or with offspring whose gametes were so mutated over time (by dominance, among other things. Of course, many of the individuals who could be refererd to as “new species” would not survive, or their genetic profile would be subsumed into that of individuals/groups whose dominant genes absorbed most of the characteristics of the mutated “species.”
That’s one reason why we have some genetic diseases. Hemophilia, for example, occurs when two individuals with a recessive (and until very recently, hidden) gene produced an offspring with this terrible and until recently invariably fatal disease. So also with Tay-Sachs, and others - these are reproductively non-advantageous, and dominant genes have saved our human population from being wiped out by such random mutations.
Horses and donkeys can mate, as we know, to produce mules, though mules are infertile. Darwin and others of his time catalogued a variety of other naturally occurring anomolies in the genus equus that pointed toward the possibility\of a new equine species developing.
So - genetics is hard science, based on observation and testing - so much so that the creationist article I am providing uses its technical details to try to refute the close connections between chimps and us. Evolution is, as I have decribed above, an inference based on initially paleontology and now genetics and physics. It is emphatically not religion, to be taken on faith - many of its elements are demonstrable empirically, as noted.
And creationism cannot be called science if it seeks to harmonize rational evidence with pre-existing theory - in this case the Bible.
I’ve tried to demonstrate with one simple example above from the Gospel of John that faith exists in a sphere apart from rationality; Paul makes frequent references to the primacy of faith among Christian virtues.
The spheres of faith and science need not intersect for both to be true; problems arise when one attempts to invade the province of the other.
Anyway, here are some links:
evolutionist (booooo!!!!):
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
and now creationist (yayyyy!!!):
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2070&cat=5
Cao seems to be the resident expert on creation science, in part by virtue of her father’s work in the subject; I hoping that she finds this to be a worthy article - I find it provocative and well-written.
Til the next time, mes amis!
Comment by Superhawk's Bro — 3/5/2005 @ 9:21 pm
Science has many disciplines. It is not possible for scientist to study/research all of them with any degree of proficiency so they specialize. As scientist of different fields make discoveries that impact various theories those theories have to be adjusted to accommodate this new knowledge. This has certainly happened with Darwin’s original theory. However, nothing so far has debunked the main thrust of the theory which is why it remains viable even today.
There are scientist who are atheists, who argue against creation at the hand of God. There are also scientist who fall at the other extreme of the spectrum, who wish to debunk any theory that they percieve conflicts with the literal word of the bible. However, the great majority of scientist fall into the middle. I am sure there are teachers who fall at the far extremes of the spectrum as well. Fortunately, since religion is not “taught” in school atheist parents do not have to worry about their children being told that there is a God and religious parents don’t have to worry about their kids being told that there is no God and the the creation of everything is merely happenstance.
Schools exist to prepare children for college. Some of those children will go on to be scientist and need a proper foundation in science in order to prepare them for more rigorous studies in their chosen field in college. To fail to teach them the basic tenets of science, and this would include an introduction into evolution as a theory, is to do them a disservice. It is also a disservice to society since children represent the future and we cannot expect strides to be made by individuals who are playing catch-up.
The stickers that sparked the orginal post were nothing more than a flag to kids that they could ignore that part of their testbook. That sticker would have sparked the type of debate that we do not want teachers weighing in on with our kids. Those convesations belong at home where we can reinforce the values that we as parents believe to be important. To argue that a teenager would accept the sticker at face value is to acknowledge that he or she is capable of critical thinking in which case the sticker is superfluous. While that is probably true of a good many teenagers, the sticker still would have been used by some teenagers to disrupt class debating about the merits of the instruction. In some instances, the debate would be sparked by a student with deeply held convictions but in others it would have been sparked by the class clown/rowdy. While the class clown/rowdy doesn’t care where the debate leads as long as it disrupts lessons, the student with the deeply held convictions will inevitable find themselves attacked for thier inability to approach the subject with a more open mind, which in turn is interpreted as a personal attack. Reverse the setting making students with a strong belief of the literal interpretation of the bible the majority and the student(s) that believe their is room to believe in God and the theory of evolution walk away feeling that they have been persoanlly attacked. Teenagers are capable of critical thinking but they are also emotional, tending to internalize every little comment as relating specifically to them. Either way someone feels ostracized or critized when religious debate enters the classroom. It doesn’t belong there period.
Comment by Carol — 3/6/2005 @ 6:48 am
The problem with genetic mutation is that it weakens and doesn’t strengthen the individual.
This is one of the most basic problems with the theory of evolution in both its ‘natural selection’ argument and it’s ‘genetic mutation’ argument.
Darwin’s theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps, into human beings. The question then arises: How did fish acquire the genes to become humans? A creature can’t be anything physically that its genes won’t allow. A zebra can’t give birth to a baby kangaroo–it only has zebra genes. A woman can’t be born blonde without genes for blonde hair–otherwise she has to use Miss Clairol.
Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin’s day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments.
He wrote:
In other words, Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even after millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.
To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists assert that the fish’s genes must have mutated into human genes over eons–mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to its environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.
But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University, and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has written an important new book, “Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.” In it, he writes,
Mutations delete information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Hemophilia. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Down’s Syndrome. Over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.
To advance their view, evolutionists have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given; mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ-killing drugs). And so, the argument goes,
Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss.
For example. To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in the ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No ‘evolution’ has taken place; the bacteria are not stronger. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.
It’s often possible to deduce a benefit from information loss. Suppose you ripped the windshield wipers off your car. Any benefit? Yes, your windshield could never be scratched by the wipers. But don’t we all prefer wipers? Or suppose we just did away with cars completely. That would be a huge loss of information and technology, but there would be benefits, right? Less pollution, nobody would die in car accidents, or get injured by air bags.
What if a mutation causes a child to be born deaf? Any benefit? Yes, the child would never hear curse words. But don’t we all want children who can hear? In the same way, evolutionists, by viewing a particular mutation in a limited context, may describe the mutation as “beneficial” and incorrectly say it represents evolutionary progress. A good example is the disease sickle cell anemia, which some evolutionists have portrayed as beneficial because its deformed red blood cells are immune to malaria. But this is akin to saying it would be good to cut off your toes to prevent athlete’s foot. Like an armless man, the wiperless car, and the deaf child, these “beneficial mutations” turn out to be information losses.
This is quite a problem for evolution. Because if Darwin’s thesis is correct, and all life began as a single cell, then chance mutations must have designed and engineered nearly every biological feature on Earth, from dolphin’s remarkable sonar system (which is the envy of the US Navy) to the human heart, which is an ingenius structure. Blood is pumped from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; back to the heart’s left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60,000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves that prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses form a natural pacemaker control the heart’s rhythm.
Rarely, mutations cause babies to be born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation. Hemoglobin-the blood’s oxygen-carrying component–has over forty mutant variants. Not one transports oxygen better than normal hemoglobin. To accept evolution, we must believe that human blood circulation–a wonder of engineering–was constructed by chance mutations, when actual observation shows they damage it.
Comment by Cao — 10/14/2005 @ 9:45 am