The following article is a response to some comments I received on my last blog post. An atheist gentleman who calls himself the “Human Ape” read my article on Theistic Evolution and took it as an opportunity to express his views the topic. His comments are still up, and you may read them if you like.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Human Ape,
I was not aware I was entering an arena when I clicked the comment box this afternoon! That being said, I am very glad you decided to post your counter-arguments, so we can debate them openly.
I believe the essence of your argument was summed up in this excerpt:
“In science, an idea that is widely accepted is not necessarily true. However if that idea has tons of evidence, and if the evidence is undeniable, than yes of course, it is fair to say that idea is true…the scientific community now has enough evidence to call the basic facts of evolution the strongest facts of science.”
I certainly agree on your point that any scientific theory must be backed by the evidence to be considered valid. That is why I believe we must weigh the evidence both for and against Evolution to decide if it is worthy to be taught as fact. This topic is far broader than can be covered in a single blog article. In future I hope to discuss it in more detail. For right now, I will give as brief a response as I can, outlining only a few of the many devastating evidences against evolution. I will begin with Molecular Biology:
To tell the truth, I was amused to find you consider Molecular Biology the strongest area of evidence for evolution. This is because it is in Molecular Biology that evolution has been most discredited in recent years.
1. The First Living Cell?
When Darwin originally developed his theory, he believed that simple cells were just that- simple. He therefore assumed it would be possible for such a simple life form to rise by spontaneous means. But until you have a self-reproducing organism, the only naturalistic mechanism for its evolution is random chance (natural selection does not work on dead matter). The simplest bacteria has over 200 genes encoded in over 100,000 base locations. This amount of information cannot possibly arise from random chance (even given billions of years over billions of planets). And this simplest of microbes is only a parasite, unable to reproduce without using machinery from more complex cells.
2. Irreducible Complexity
It has been shown that many microbiological systems in living things are irreducibly complex. This means that there is no simpler system from which they could have evolved. All the pieces of the system have to be in place for the system to confer any survival benefit to the organism. Examples of irreducible complexity include:
-The bacterial flagellum
-The intercellular protein transport system
-Machinery for translating encoded DNA and constructing proteins from it
-The blood-clotting system protein cascade
-The ATP Synthase Motor
3. Evidence from DNA
Most of the evolutionary arguments from DNA are based on the assumption that if DNA sequences in different species are similar, that shows an ancestral relationship between the species. This ignores the possibility that the similarities are due to a common designer and not common descent. After all, two programs for different computer applications written by the same programmer are more likely than not to contain similar coding sequences.
But apart from this, the evidence from DNA analysis for evolution is not consistent. For example, the initial estimate of a 98% similarly between human and chimpanzee DNA was only based on gene sequences that could be matched up and measured by single base-pair substitutions. Other differences, such as insertions and deletions (which are completely different sequences between the organisms) were totally ignored. Since then, the estimates for similarity have been steadily decreasing, as more genetic information is included in the analysis. Other studies have compared individual proteins that were common to many species and listed the similarity percentage. However, as more protein genes are sequenced for different species, the evidence for ancestry has been inconsistent. One protein analysis suggested that we were more closely related to guinea pigs than to chimps. Finally, many of the evolutionary DNA analyses assume that human DNA is 95% junk material, and therefore, differences in this DNA record the evolutionary history of the species. But as our knowledge of Molecular Biology increases, more and more vital functions are being discovered for this supposedly useless DNA (examples include: gene suppression and RNA machine templates). Thus the premise of these analyses is called into serious question.
4. Genetic Entropy and the Decay of the Human Genome
Another assumption evolution makes is that beneficial mutations are common enough and harmful mutations are rare enough that natural selection can work to improve the species. In order for this to occur, the number of mutations in the functional (non-junk) DNA must be less than 1 per individual. But current studies of Micro-biology have shown that the actual mutation rate in human beings is over 100 per individual. Even if 95% of our DNA is junk, this would still yield about 5 new mutations per individual per generation. Furthermore, it has been shown that the vast majority of these mutations are near-neutral or harmful. This suggests that rather than improving, the Human genome is actually decaying over time. No amount of natural selection can stop this. Evidence for decay can also be found in every higher animal species. If evolution is biological change over time, than it seems to me that we are changing in the wrong direction.
Based on this evidence, I hope you can see that my objections to evolution are not based only on my religious faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support my conclusions. The points I have listed are only a few out of many factual and logical objections to the theory of evolution.
If you are interested in further study, allow me to recommend the following resources (which I have used as sources for my argument):
-The Edge of Evolution by Dr. Michael J. Behe
-Darwin’s Black Box also by Michael Behe
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford
-Unlocking the Mysteries of Life (this one is a video by Focus on the Family)
-Codes and Creation (a DVD from Creation Ministries International)
Again, thank you for commenting.
Respectfully yours,
Lightweaver
_____________________________________________________
To the rest of my readers: I hope this encourages you not to be afraid of the arguments raised against us by Evolutionists and others. The facts (twisted and suppressed as they are today) are in our favor. And science, real science, is an awesome testimony to the greatness of our creator.
Special thanks to my Mom (a mathematical statistician who studies science for a hobby) who helped me compile and organize the data for this article. You're amazing!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would like to explain some things to you, but I just got back home from working all night, and I really should get some sleep first, so please be patient and I will return in a few hours or many hours.
But first I will say a few things for you to think about.
That is why I believe we must weigh the evidence both for and against Evolution to decide if it is worthy to be taught as fact.
Already I see a big problem. I've been studying evolutionary biology for several years. I have read books and I have read websites written by REAL scientists. You know, scientists who have actually made many important contributions to science. Instead of fake scientists like Michael Behe who spends more time spreading lies for his Christian customers than doing any real science. Behe's Lehigh University, where he has tenure so they can't get rid of him, has had its reputation completely ruined by Michael Behe. Their biology department did something extremely rare - they published a statement about Behe, pointing out (if you read between the lines) his dishonesty and his stupidity. They are ashamed of Behe, but Behe doesn't care. Behe knows he's a pathological liar and he laughs at his Christian customers all the way to the bank.
Anyway, in my intensive study of how evolution works, and my study of the evidence for it, I have yet to find anything "against evolution". There simply is no evidence against it, despite what the professional liars for Christianity say.
You probably would not say our earth's orbit around the sun has evidence against it. Evolution is the same. Like our planet's orbit around the sun, evolution is an established truth. I know I'm right about this. I don't have to trust anyone and I don't trust anyone. I reject a lot of ideas because they don't yet have enough evidence. But evolution really does have tons of evidence.
You're a victim of a big business that spreads lies about science. I'm not too interested in spending my precious time trying to refute nonsense that has been refuted countless times before, but I will be back to say a few more things.
In the meantime, would it kill you to read a book by a real biologist?
"Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. I recommend it because it's interesting and easy to read. It's a book that's difficult to put down. It's that interesting.
Jerry Coyne, like all other real scientists, does not invoke supernatural magic (also known as intelligent design, also known as woo-woo) to solve scientific problems. But that's what Behe does. Behe pretends he is doing science, but he knows he's just making money off of the uneducated and gullible. Behe knows he is the laughing-stock of the scientific community. Behe knows his Lehigh University is ashamed of him. Behe knows he repeatedly made a complete fool out of himself at the Dover trial where the judge was amazed that the creationists had an idiot like Behe on their side. Behe knows every one of his childish ideas was completely refuted at the Dover trial, but he continues to repeatedly spread the same lies, because that's what he does for a living.
More later. And please understand that my reputation is important to me. I would rather be dead than be called dishonest.
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
How about intellectually dishonest, sir? Please read my comments in the previous post.
Mr. Human Ape,
Whereas the first comment you posted had one legitimate point (the issue of evidence), all your subsequent comments have consisted entirely of personal attacks on myself, my beliefs, and my sources.
Furthermore, they are fraught with logical fallacies. I gave you four detailed scientific examples of the evidence against evolution (I was limited to four only by time and space. I am, after all a high school student with other things to do.) Rather than addressing the evidence directly, as you said you wanted to do in your first comment, you tried to discredit that evidence by insulting my sources and myself.
Truth is not dependant on the reputation of the person expressing it. The data I have described is real and well documented by Evolutionist, Intelligent Design, and Creationist scientists. The validity of this evidence does not depend on the reputation of Mr. Behe or any other researcher.
By the way, we both know that the Dover Trial was not decided on the evidence for or against evolution. It was decided by a naturalistic (and therefore biased) definition of science that excluded Intelligent Design- a priori.
As for comparing Evolution to the fact that the earth orbits the sun- We can see the earth orbiting the sun (those things called satellites). However, there is no way whatsoever to see Macroevolution at work. Something that, by definition, happens slowly over billions of years cannot be witnessed. If science is observable and repeatable, then I can tell you for sure that Macroevolution is not science.
While we are on the topic of the earth's orbit, may I remind you that Galileo was not highly respected (I.e. imprisoned, tortured, and forced to recant) by the scientific establishment of his day. The Vatican scientists were not defending the Bible at his trial, instead, they were defending the astronomic predictions of Ptolemy (who was a Greek pagan).
And yet, the attacks on Galileo did nothing to change to respective positions earth and sun. Similarly, your attacks on Mr. Behe, creationists in general, and me in particular will do nothing to change the truth about the existence of God, the Creator.
Finally, I am always open to reasoned, logical debate, but not emotional rants. I regret to say that if your groundless and discourteous attacks continue, I will be forced to change the policy of this blog to Closed Comment.
Amen.
Post a Comment