Is Evolution Pseudoscience?

So what is a pseudoscience? A google search of the term along with 'definition' shows up many results. All of these results seem to point to the notion that a pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs believed to have a scientific basis to them. So while perusing through the CMI website today, I found an article asking this question about evolution (which can be found HERE).

The CMI author basis his claims on the in-depth definition of Pseudoscience from the Skeptics Dictionary ( Pseudoscience- The Skeptics Dictionary) and goes through 10 criteria to further his topic claim. The SD (the skeptics dictionary) uses creationism as its example of what traits a pseudoscience possesses, which may be a little unfair on their part, but has its merits in each of its points. This apparently outward attack is picked up in the CMI article, and retaliated upon, IMO, in a sort of childish school yard manner. So lets look at each of the criteria, and the CMI response one by one;

1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.
In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’² [our emphasis]
We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.

I'm actually a little unsure and confused by what this answer is trying to get at. The SD criteria of pseudoscience is that it is based upon an authoritative text ( in creationism's case, Gods true word is in the bible, therefore its to be taken as truth), and the CMI authors answer claims that the scientific community basis its trust in evolutionary theory because "the scientists said so". Unfortunately for creationist, this claim can still be put down; its the job of the scientific community to verify claims made based on empirical evidence, within the scope of evolution, the various areas that support the theory base that support on physical evidence that is found (i.e. fossils). Of course, I can guess that any creationist reading this post would argue that no evidence has ever been found, but the evidence is why people base their trust in the theory of evolution, evidence. The second bit of the CMI answer is just flat out childish, I really have no comment on that.

2. Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.
So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’ 

I think what needs to be defined in this case is the term evolution. I know for a fact that creationist organizations KNOW the meaning, yet continue to say that because it hasn't been observed as an organism is changing (meaning species to species) it simply does not happen. Again, doing a simple google search on the definition of biological evolution (which is what the specific case is) all points to the idea that organisms change over time, or through many generations through inheritance of genetic traits. So while we do not see populations physically changing all the time (due to the fact that we simply do not have the amount of time TO see a physical change), we do know that they do in fact change. Organisms (for example humans) may not necessarily change to different species, but in order for this sort of significant change to occur, different conditions would be needed for something new and significant to arise, as well as inheritance through many generations. So yes, it is totally unrealistic to expect to see a new species arise, especially in populations that do not grow at an exponential rate. BUT, organisms that do produce large population rates are and have been seen to produce various (different) populations, which has been, and continues to be done in controlled lab experiments. Again, the last bit of the answer is irrelevant to anything; the quote from Richard Dawkins only attempts to pin Dr. Dawkins in a vilified light, as in, a lying evolutionist.

3. Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.
The next is essentially the same:4. … [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.
Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.
But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example).
Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

Hmm... I think what the CMI author is attempting here, is to say that the theory of evolution just explains anything without evidence or study. As well that its just shoehorned to fit with what physical evidence shows... I really think that is more so what creationists do. Lets take the story of Babel; in the city, an apparent tower was built to reach up to the heavens, but God sees this and comes down to confound the citizens, so that they spread across the earth. Archaeological evidence shows that ancient Mesopotamian populations built large structure called ziggurat's, and adherents of creationism attribute these  structures as definite proof of the tower in Babel. There is no evidence to suggest that this event happened at all, but the physical evidence of ziggurats somehow proves that this is a factual, historical event.

The comment on peacocks; the same thing applies to any species, the most attractive are usually the ones sought out by potential mates. The mating produces offspring, who inherit the traits of their parents, and so on and so forth, which continues the trait of the large and vibrant tails. Again this relates back to inheritance through populations, traits remain. It is simply ignorant to state that the theory predicts nothing and proves nothing, when all areas of evolutionary biology, as well as paleontology, have predicted specific outcomes due to what evolutionary theory would predict ( genetic inheritance, progressively more complex fossils the higher the strata).

5. Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’
So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized.
We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly! 

While fossilization is in fact a rare occurrence, there is still an astounding number found throughout the geological timescale (ie the strata graphic layers). First off, fossil evidence is not non-existent,  but the conditions of fossilization are rare, producing fossils only in rare instances. As well, Cambrian species that have fossil evidence are mainly those that where hard bodied or shelled, giving a more likely chance of fossilization  rather than the soft bodied species that have less of a chance to fossilize. Overall, the answer here by CMI is to say that because of the lack in evidence of evolution in cambrian species, and the slow gradual change in species in the present time, evolution doesn't happen. But the wealth of knowledge and evidence thus far still  says otherwise, and of course science still has work to do to find the answer, which is what science does, working to explain whats not fully known.

6. Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC).

 Nothing to defened with here? How shocking! And I'm being sincere here. I've looked into the Greek Philosopher Empedocles, and found nothing on the sort of evolutionary notions (although I could be wrong about that). However, if Empedocles did give notions of evolution, it would have been due to observations (something physical). Creationism relies on ancient myths and legends though, and in order to put trust in creationist ideas, one needs to believe in the bible and the stories within ( which are myths and legends, passed on and inspired by other myths and legends).

7. Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’. In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’. Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read your mind.

The horse story, hmm, so what this is saying is that fossils are found, then simply placed in ascending order from simple to complex to show evolution. Its not as straightforward as this though, any sort of specimen found from the horse family and placed in a gradual line (depending on whether ancestral traits are consistent with descendants) depending on where they are found in the various layers of strata.

Most creatures wont, and dont exists until theres evidence found for them, by the way....

8. Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’ But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics, and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately.’ Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’.

I think the quote from AAAS may be out of context. I was unable to find the specific quote, which may be due to the re organization of the web site. The link on the CMI website led to a non-existent web page, so its hard to see what this quote was in fact saying.

*Edit

I finally found the source of the quote. It came from a paper published in the journal zygon, and indeed the quote was out of context, as well as misrepresented. The quote was from the opening paragraph, how odd to pick a quote from the opening paragraph of a 17 page paper, rife with many other positions and ideas on the philosophy of evolution being equated to a religion. Quote-mining at its best I suppose.

9. Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19^th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter.’
But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally … ’. The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’spossible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

Life forming from inorganic matter has nothing to do with evolution... this more so deals with origins of life, not how they've changed over time (Abiogenesis anyone?).

10. Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’ So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’.

Another case of quote mining.... with a great amount left out to intentionally put the quote in a negative light, as if to say that 'Evolutionists admit themselves that their theory is defunct'. The quote comes from the NCSE, and the article discusses the way in which science is mistaught and misconstrued to the general public (lay people). The article can be found HERE and the various bits of the quote under the heading "Evolution and the Nature of Science).

The overall issue with many of these creationist publications is that they have an overall agenda to make any opposing ideas evil and corrupt. I encourage you, whoever reads this, or creationist publications to do more research than whats presented in CMI's or any other creationist publications. The more you look into what creationists are attempting to promote, and ultimately "dictate", over the masses, the more devious and unethical their methods become.

Atheism and families

Well,

Lets start out with an apology. I have almost seemingly neglected my duty to continue writing in this blog. No, its not by choice, but rather by commitment that I loose steam in doing posts. I'm hoping that this is a relevant apology though, as I'm quite unsure of how may visitors I actually get.None the less, I've found an interesting topic to blog about for today! I've begun to make a habit of visiting the major creationist websites (CMI, AiG being the main two) to seek out their literature. Today I found an article relating to another interest within the spectrum of the creationist termed "Evolution Controversy."Atheism and its apparently harsh implications on society.

The article om CMI, titled "Atheism, evolutionism (This is not even a recognized word) and families" found HERE , is an apparent commentary on another article published in Psychology Today titled "The Atheist at the Breakfast Table" by Bruce Grierson (Title leads to Griersons blog, where the article is published in full, and also contains a link to the shortened version published in Psychology Today). The CMI author(s), Douglas Oliver and Stuart Burgess, give a fairly brief overview of what Grierson's article talks about, and instead hyper-focus in on certain quotes and word usage to give a sense that the idea of Atheism (which somehow directly relates to evolution) is a spreading "disease" on modern society, and undoubtedly has "negative effects on churches, parents, and children."

Reading Grierson's actual article provides a much different, and less hostile, view of the topic within the article: Tolerance. Religious tolerance more precisely. In short, the religious-less (Atheists) are touted as a harsh group, and therefore, are looked down upon (especially within fundamental religious circles) due to a few within the group that promote it so outwardly (the late Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins as examples). But, there is another side to the matter that is not generally seen, the side that doesnt vehemently attack those in the religious sphere, which Grierson states, is "much larger than the section who does." A question was brought up in my mind: Why take an article, so obviously on the side of peaceful tolerance towards other, and twist it to put Atheism (as well as evolution) in such a bad light?

The CMI authors (I'm unsure of who did what) go on to present some examples of common misconceptions of Atheist, that Grierson's article apparently shows.

1) Atheists typically assume that they are open-minded, but they usually exclude even the possibility of a Creator, i.e. they are not. E.g., Julian Huxley famously said that “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance”. Todd more recently admitted that he also believed that science excludes a Creator: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”.

There are many issues within this statement, and right off the bat as well. Creationist also assume they are open minded, they study the sciences too to look at the evidence brought up that opposes their position, but immediately, and illogically (attempt to) refute what is presented to them. As well, open minded "Christians" would not downplay other views (religions included) if there was such an open-minded ideology among them. Grierson's article does not present the idea that "Atheists" are contradictory in being open minded thinkers, quite the opposite actually, in that tolerance can only come about when more than one view is explored rather than being only exposed to dogmatic views (and not specifically that of Creationism, and Christianity). Next is a quote from Julian Huxley, however, science does not study what is not observable or empirical, or repeatable, and bringing in the supernatural would hinder an explanation attempted by scientists on a certain phenomena. Then a quote from Todd is brought up, which is confusing due to the fact that no mention of this "Todd" has been brought up until his name is mentioned. Further investigation reveals a bit more than the simple quote; Todd goes on to say that "of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism", making the presupposition that S.C. Todd (who obviously wrote the article, only made know in the references) encourages the notion that science doesn't want God. Without going into too much detail on the article, titled "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate" gives an overview on some of the rulings on the debate to teach creationsim within science classrooms in Kansas, where at the time of the article, had banned the teaching of evolution. Todd essentially makes the plea that science needs to be taught properly, not dogmatically. Quote bombing is a terrible thing, it simply makes creationists look highly dishonest.

(2) They assume that they are ‘quiet’ and ‘non-fundamentalist’ people, when in fact their position is just as ‘loud’ and ‘fundamentalist’ (in the modern derogatory sense of intolerant and exclusionary) as that of anyone! To essentially worship pleasure rather than God (2 Timothy 3) might seem to be a non-religious, non-fundamentalist position but it is actually an (atheistic) fundamentalist/dogmatic position. Furthermore, to ignore God (if He exists, which is the question at issue) is actually a very bold and provocative thing to do—not a quiet, reasonable thing

This next misconception shows more dishonesty on the part of the CMI authors, and is exactly the point the Grierson makes in his article. The overly outspoken proponents of Atheism tend to be "loud" and "fundamentalist", which Creationists attribute to all Atheists, but the quiet and non-fundamentalist side is what is explored in Grierson's article, to in fact show that there is more to it than the aggressive proponents who are outspoken on the view. The point is made that this loud and fundamentalist action of certain individuals within the Atheism sphere, represents a derogatory sense of intolerance and  exclusion, but why? Grierson's article has nothing to do atheists thinking they are just quiet and nice about their views, and like ive already mentioned, reflect that tolerance is what a widespread portion practice. A great deal of the article talks about how to handle this as a parent, and when religious views are thrown into the picture, how you can handle those situations as an atheist; essentially, TALK to your children, DON'T indoctrinate.

(3) They assume that the majority of academics do not believe in God. However modern science encourages people to keep silent about God; scientists are not allowed to mention God or give Him glory in their research papers. And if a scientist does mention God, his career can be negatively affected. However, our personal experiences as academics are that there is very significant (but not articulated) sympathy for, e.g., intelligent design among academics in secular universities.

Here, the last misconception talks about the view of academics in relation to some intelligent creator. Apparently the majority of academics really do believe in God, otherwise, why would Atheists assume this. While there is a definite presence of God believing academics, there is still a larger amount of those that don't believe in the God of the Bible. This is only the broad spectrum of academia; narrowed down to what creationists are actually concerned about, there is an even smaller amount that believe in a God, and a minuscule portion that are creationist. I dont think I need to link to any stats, but you can very easily find these sorts of numbers online. That was only the first sentence in the third misconception, the rest of it deals with the apparent censorship of God believing professionals. Modern science makes not law, nor endorses the idea that ideas of God must be kept silent. In what context would a scientist, religious or not, have the need to mention God or give glory to Him in any technical paper? Lets take a look at a fairly recent paper (also the topic of scrutiny in a CMI article): the paper is titled Feathered Non-Avian Dinosaurs from
North America Provide Insight into Wing Origins, and although this is just a title, I'm sure you could gather that the paper deals with wing and feather developments in non-flight dinosaurs, correct? The point of the article is to detail the study which the paper is about, and the establishment of it being about dinosaurs, feathers, and wings certainly does not give need to praise the Lord. In fact, the paper makes no mention of thanks or praise to anyone, deity or not, other than the mention of contributors names, and a reference list from which ideas have been used from (these can be taken as a form of thanks, but are far from being directly this). The statement that academics that do make mention of God have their careers negatively affected, is a horrific distortion of any sort of truth (providing that any of it is at all true, this article HERE gives an instance of the sort of dishonesty I'm talking about).

The rest of the article goes on to vilify Grierson's article even further by "putting words in his mouth" and making unnecessary and irrelevant claims about past and famous forefathers of the scientific community being creationists, as well as saying that Grierson (and essentially all Atheistic evolutionists) are locked in a conspiracy to swindle the mass populous into believing that Atheists are not bad, or horrible people (it also attributes proponents of historical atrocities, such as Stalin and Hitler, to the teaching of atheistic and evolutionary thinking... surprise, surprise).

The mass population of creationists are in such a dire state IMO, there never seems to be major headway with their movement, both within the areas of scientific advancement (creation "science" only aims to disprove their opposing ideas, which is not to advance scientific hypotheses) and the area of gaining any major support for their position. I really have to wonder where it all stops, relentless as they are, there will eventually be an end to this sort of dishonest thinking.

How to Survive Secular College

So, once again I have decided against posting the rest of the "15 questions" article. Why? you ask, well while the post is complete, I keep finding other things I really want to blog about.

Take this for example; I decided to check out another creationist resource on the web. This time, instead of looking through CMIs website, I looked at AiGs site (Answers in Genesis; headed by Ken Ham). Most things along the same lines as at CMI (and generally any other creationist online source) I thought to try looking for something a little different than the usual spiel that creationists talk about. That was when a video popped up and piqued my interests.

The video was titled "How to survive secular college" and can be found HERE. The main idea behind the video is advice a creationist student (as well as the parents) should take when attending a college that does not believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. My first question was, why go to the lengths of giving advice on how to "survive" secular education. First thing that should be taken into account when looking into the topic is what the meaning of "secular" is, which simply is the stance that an institution or state does not necessarily have any religious bias. I think the term in this case is taken a bit out of context, as if to state that "secular colleges" are fervently against Christianity (which is the religion AiG follows) or religion in general. This gross misrepresentation of the post-secondary education system, and seems to vilify those who work in the system as proponents of "creation censorship".

Lets move on from the definition of "secular" though; the video is presented by a staff researcher of AiG named Jason Lisle, who (while it doesn't fully matter) holds a Ph.D.  in Astrophysics. Lisle begins with the issue of how to survive in a secular college,  and states that this is question often asked of him by parents of students who will be attending post-secondary schools. While it may be looking a little too much in the opening phrases, Lisle follows by making the claim that "students will be getting a lot of information that may not be entirely true" and "Pushes towards and evolutionary worldview rather than being objectively, factually true." Commonly, the creationist sources and proponents attribute dishonestly to institution that don't share their viewpoint ( I know, this is the same spiel that they usually talk about, but it was part of the video...). This is can be a particularly harmful viewpoint in the sense that it is generally an outright lie. What is taught by teachers in colleges is true from their own experiences in their respective fields and learned knowledge from years and years worth of recorded information. If a hypothesis has been changed, or new information has been brought up and verified to be valid, this is generally added into what teachers will talk about in their lectures. This doesn't constitute misrepresentation of facts.

Lisle's answer to this overall question can be done in a few steps; first is to keep solid in your faith, second is prayer, and third is to be a part of a good christian church. In my opinion, nothing wrong with giving advice on how to keep to your faith, but one small issue I have is with the next little bit of his steps to "surviving". Within the third step, Lisle warns that there are many churches out there that aren't very good for your faith as a christian. But, what constitutes Lisle`s advice, or the stance of AiG as "good christian teaching"?

The fourth step involves seeking out like minded individuals who are "good, solid christian creationists". Meaning "go to post secondary, but censor yourself from anything opposing your religion". Why this is an issue is due to the fact that limiting yourself from other viewpoints hinders ones ability to look at situations objectively, as well as being unbiased. Within the scope of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty (while some instances become flawed, you shouldn't place judgment without looking into the facts).

Next comes the plug; If you want to survive secular education, you should jump right on getting material and resources from AiG. Shameless plug, as well as mistaken. While many creationists put some sort of work into their resource materials, it doesn't provide you with  any information to help you with your critical thinking skills, but rather how to ignore evidence and commit academic dishonesty ( this can be taken however you like, either as my "biased" opinion or a critique of many creationist articles by AiG, or any others).

Lisle finishes with the crux of surviving in a secular college, and that is to mislead to just get by unnoticed, and once completed, use your degree for the glory of God. I don't believe in my time as an undergraduate that I have ever had to simply, and dogmatically state the facts that I hear  in lectures or read in textbooks (maybe to a small degree as a first year student, where the basics are laid out). Rather, students are evaluated on the ability to asses the content critically, and make sense of it logically. This is hypocritical, and a stance that creationists tend to follow concretely, as in the beginning of the video Lisle warns that secular colleges will lie and censor information, but yet advises students entering into post-secondary to be dishonest and censor out from their minds anything that is in opposition.

I find it appalling that there is a need to give "advice" on how to survive secular colleges, when the point of attending resides in the pursuit of gaining specialized knowledge in specific areas. Why attempt to gain a working and applied knowledge in the area of hard sciences if your going to intentionally ignore information presented to you? Or more specifically, why enter into the field of hard sciences if you seek to sustain a knowledge and personal relationship with your faith? These aren't the reasons to gain a post-secondary  education. I would love to hear any opinions on the matter, so please, if your a visitor to this blog, give a comment in the comment box and tell me what you think!

Tragedy in Connecticut

I had originally planned my next post to be the second half of my response to CMIs "15 Questions for Evolutionists," but after yesterday's tragedy in Connecticut, decided to offer up my condolences to the victims and their families, as well as all those affected by the actions of one misguided individual.

What disturbs me most, being that the event has transpired and many have chimed in about it all over the internet, is the overwhelming amount of criticism ranging from President Obama's address to the USA, to the response from Creationists. I mention Creationists strictly because this blog is directed towards the topic of Creation vs Evolution; there are many who are not creationists that have left appalling remarks regarding the incident.

Let me first address the the latter population; Why? why even bother with remarks discussing Obama's "fake" tears, or stating this has been a staged event to make political agendas move forward (yeah, conspiracy theorists are coming out on this as well). A large amount of life was cut short yesterday, large amounts of life gets cut short everyday, but having it done so much more closer to home is what hits people the most. Does that mean young lives in war torn countries dont matter, no, wake up people! Being a student in university, I have genuine fears and thoughts of a person coming into my classrooms and destroying lives of people and myself. I'm not a parent, but I have a niece and nephew and would be heartbroken if this situation happened to them. I have family from my spouses side that has young children, or even young children from my brother-in-laws side that in the case that this would happen to them, I would also be heartbroken. The point is, people get emotional about this because it has hit so close to home; this doesnt mean that children from other nations that have their lives cut short dont matter. I find people who bring this up to be hypocritical, why not go and help those children or their families if your concerned enough to mention it?

As for the creationist perspective, some remarks have already hit the www, and while not surprised, I have to say it is just as disturbing as the events that happened in Connecticut yesterday.

Eric Hovind (son of Creationist Kent Hovind) Tweeted: Are you happy now that the shooter grew up in a school without God? So while this doesn't speak for all proponents of Creation, it may be a general concensus that humanity is crumbling due to a lack of faith in God. News flash, humanity has been crumbling for over 10,000 years. Humanity borders on depravity, whether or not faith in the christian God is present. People kill in the name of God, people kill due to mental health issues, people kill due to greed, people kill no matter what the situation, again with or without a God.

I suppose this rant leads into another creationist trait; blame, as in Creationists always point the finger towards an opposing opinion, mainly for their own personal gain.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure. All that should matter is the healing process that the victims will hopefully go through, as this situation is one that will never fully heal.

15 questions for "Evolutionists"

I constantly wonder why the word "Evolutionist" is used to describe anyone that opposes Creationism, its something that is used over and over, and to me, kind of intends to vilify the study of science as a whole.

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)

1. 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.  
   
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
   
   
5. 
   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
   
6. 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?
   
7. 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).
   
8. 
   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.
   
9. 
   
10. 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?
    
11. 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
    
12. 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? 
13. 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
    
14. 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:

In the beginning....

Well hello there fellow blog readers!

I've decided to start a blog about the topic of Evolution vs Creation, hopefully its something that interests you as much as it does me!

Now what I don't want is for you, the visitors, to think that this blog is in any way shape or form, on the sides of creation. Not by a long shot! But, this doesn't mean that I don't allow creationists to enter into the fray, by all means, contribute to the discussions! I will welcome it! But lets also try to keep things civil, Mmmkay.

So why call the blog "How to be a Creationist" if its not really geared towards that topic? Over the years that I've been exposed to the idea of creationism, I've found highly interesting patterns that tend to continually present themselves among all proponents of this so called "science". These patterns and tendencies are almost staple traits one must be able to convey if they wish to be seen as a creationist, and while much of the opposition points these observable traits to the rest of the population, creations tend to dismiss nor defend their short comings.

Now while this blog will contain many of my own opinions, this first post is to talk about a recent article posted on the CMI website. The article in question is titled "North American 'Feathered' Dinosaurs a Flight of Fancy" and can be found by clicking that very title.

The article discusses recent discoveries on the early uses of wings within a species of dinosaurs (Ornithomimus) found in North America, and cites their resources from two press releases on "popular media" science websites. Those two articles can be found HERE and HERE. The author presents the articles as the basis for the studies, and vilifies the websites as misrepresenting the data, saying that:

The puzzles, bloopers, problems and need for exaggerated artist’s reconstructions disappear when we look at this evidence from the point of view of biblical history.

Of course when talking about this, the author is referring mainly to the reconstructed image of the dinosaur in question, assuming that not much evidence has been found to create such a reconstruction. However, the author has not gone to the lengths of actually reading the published paper that discusses these findings and the research done on them. The author makes a list of problematic ideas presented within the articles. I attempted to respond to these questions, but have yet to hear whether my comments will get accepted by the website. But, here is what I proposed to them in reply to the questions asked by the author;

1.      Ornithomimus was too big and its alleged wings were too small for it to be able to fly. The researchers said this indicates the initial use of its wings was not for flight.

This does not pose any problems. Many birds have wings, but do not use them specifically for flight; ostriches or penguins are an example of this. Do a Google search on “birds that can’t fly” for a more comprehensive list and do a bit of research on what their feathers are for.

2.      The large clusters of feathers on its forelimbs (as drawn by the artist) would have been of no use for flying. But they would have been a major hindrance for walking and feeding. The researchers said the dinosaurs may have used their “flashy feathers” to woo potential mates, peacock style.

  Quite unsure of why this would hinder walking or feeding. As for using their feathers “peacock style”, what problem exactly does this pose? Its been recorded extensively that many creatures display to show potential mating interests, or for dominance.

3.      The announcement said the find will "shed light on origin of wings". However, according to evolutionary assumptions wings already existed. Archaeopteryx is ‘dated’ as 80 million years older than this CanadianOrnithomimus, which was assigned to the late Cretaceous, supposedly 71 million years ago. This has long been claimed to be the ancestor of birds and already had wings—impressive ones at that. Indeed, it looks like it could fly.

 While Archaeopteryx is an older species, the evidence of wings do not fully explain why wings or feathers evolved. Archaeopteryx does not seem to be an ancestor of Ornithomimus, but more of an offshoot that deviated much earlier from other possible feathered species, while Ornithomimus would have evolved from a different, and thus, flightless ancestor. The evidence of plumage gives more insight into wings and feather and their usage, not just in terms of flight.

4.      The reports said the Ornithomimusspecimens were apparently covered in “stringy down up to 2 inches (5 cm) long”. Note that these are not feathers but just “stringy down”. Yet the report described the strings as “filament-like feathers” (more spin). Note that the artist’s embellishment, showed not lengths of stringy down on the limbs but, an impressive array of fully formed feathers.

 Yes, a popular news media outlet on science gave limited information to the lay population… why not actually look into the article the info is cited from? The actual peer reviewed paper gives and presents the evidence of the feather structures on the older adult specimens found. Primary sources are whats usually used in science…. Not popular media sources. Hence, no “spin”.

5.      Most of the fossils of Archaeopteryx, which is dated at 80 million years older than thisOrnithomimus fossil, include impressions of feathers—impressions that were of an ‘advanced’ form, in that they are of flight feathers. So Ornithomimus throws no light on the origin of feathers, even within their own evolutionary framework, because feathers already existed.

 Again, Archaeopteryx does not explain the development of feathers, nor does it fully explain why feathers are used. More evidence of feathers can further the research already done so far.

6.      Note that the fossil is well preserved, indicating that the creature was buried rapidly before it had been scavenged and before the remains had rotted and disintegrated. The evidence points to a short time for the death and burial of the fossil.

 Rapid or slow burial (of which the latter would be more likely) has nothing to do with feather development. This is also not the only fossil(s) that the primary source is examining. Surely a large institution as CMI has the resources to gain the actual article?

7.      Note, too, the posture of the animal. Its back is arched, legs thrown forward and bent, neck curved tightly and head forward. This is the classic ‘dead dinosaur posture’ which indicates rapid burial. It has been suggested this opisthotonic posture is due to the animal being suffocated as it was buried (see Death throes), or submersion increasing buoyancy so that a strong spinal ligament can pull back the tail and neck (see ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!).

 Uh… this is also found in recent species, as well as humans who have not been rapidly buried….  so this does not prove rapid burial, nor does so called “rapid burial” have any relevancy to the development of feathers.

While my answers may not be fully developed, or maybe misinterpreting the author, I find it somewhat disturbing that a source claiming to be "truthful" in all matters, would go to lengths of telling their audience that these "press articles" are outright lying about data. No mention of the actual research was made, therefore, not even looked at. This contributes to one of my "traits" for creationists: Lying.

Ok so this is not a major trait, everyone lies, but the way it is done by creationist resources is fairly harmful to the population they tend to. While it probably wont disappear in any foreseeable future, hopefully lying will become another point on the creationist list of "arguments to not use".