So this post isnt about the use of the word "Evolutionist", but rather an article I've found on CMI's main web page. The whole of the article is 15 questions, with respective answers from the author, and links to various other CMI articles on the subject of each question. I'm supposing that this is a good enough response for those who have the side of creationism.
The first thing that is stated before the questions begin, deals with the general definition of evolution;
(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)This statement seems to relate specifically to the first question, but why start with this? Obviously we will see in a little but when I get to the questions, but who is Kerkut? Kerkut refers to Garald A. Kerkut, a British zoologist and physiologist who wrote a book titled Implications of Evolution and described some of the concerns and problematic areas within the theory of evolution. What the CMI author has done is take the ideas presented by Kerkut, and formed them as solid evidence that evolution is simply not possible. The link provided by the CMI author leads to another CMI article which talks about the origin of life itself, and cites a quote from Kerkut's book; this in itself id problematic as Kerkut's book is not against the theory or evolution, nor does he state that the problematic areas point to the destruction of the theory itself. Whats puzzling about the use of the quote from Kurkut is that it comes from the conclusion of the book, not from within the bulk of its contents. Why use a quote that presents no actual work from Kerkut? The book itself is available in full and can be found HERE, its quite a read, and if it were contemporary with the present state of research on the matter, might yield better results for the creationists.
Anyway, on to the questions: (DISCLAIMER: I dont pretend to know all the answers to these questions, but will try to talk through some of them. Eventually I will be able to research the ones I cannot immediately answer)
- How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?- What scientists don't fully know of understand does not provide full on evidence that the only explanation for the origins of life itself can be special creation. The quote and use of G. Kerkut's work relates to this; the origins of life is a study called Abiogenesis, which explains how chemical processes would have formed the basis of all living things. While it leads to evolution, it does not simply move from "goo to you" or "microbe to microbiologist" as many creationist proponents tend to convey to their listeners. While no one can pinpoint the direct path that led to the mixing of chemicals into early life, but there are many models and experimentation that has been done to attempt to explain how it could arise naturally.
- How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?- Again, why must it be special creation? When referring to coding systems, I feel that creationists tend to always fall back to mechanical forms of design. Clearly a coding system like that of a computer program is designed by a coder, and does not spontaneously arise. I think that a little bit knowledge on the subject of biology could go a long way in being able to determine why DNA codes the way it does. As well, the code itself is created by humans, in that we have given it the designation of a code formation. The claim that it is unrelated to chemical properties gives the idea that there are no chemical reactions taking place, which is simply not true.
- How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?- Once again, the lack in biological knowledge is evident through the question. This also points to the bias that a mutation is strictly harmful, which most creationists will agree with. But, there are certain beneficial muations that occur in populations of species. Given that the environment is adaptable by the mutant organism, the population will grow with the muation still intact. On the downside, it may lead to genetic disease that might yield unsavory results for the poor individual. With that in mind, the passing on of genes (if the muation proves beneficial) would certainly give rise to a specialized organism, which can have the potential to thrive. No scrambling is also taking place, that would imply that the muation completely throws the DNA sequence in compete disarry, which it doesn't do; a simple change in sequence is what takes place.
- Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?- Obviously a misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, as well as the process evolution takes. Natural selection does not intend to explain the origin of a specific species, or origins of life itself. Natural selection shows how traits (most favorable) pass through a population and become dominant, as well explains why certain features are seen in specific environments. It is taught within the framework of evolution because without out it, there would be no means for certain traits to pass on through generations. Its not attempting to explain the origin of beaks or finches, but rather why there is variation between different areas.While there are still many more questions to look at from the article, this point will conclude this post. Pt 2 will continue on with the next set of questions, and for now, here are the rest of them for readers to mull over.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3- How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
- How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.- How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
- Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8
- Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
- Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12
- Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
See:
No comments:
Post a Comment