From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

by hooberus 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamilcarr

  Keep in mind that I did read Darwin's Black Box written by the famed ID microbiologist Michael Behe. This book is also mentioned in the article posted above. He makes what appears to be an excellent case for Intelligent Design, and at the time that I read it I believed it contained the last word on proof of Creation. I had an emotional attachment at that time to the idea of Creation because I had to believe in the God of the Bible despite all the mental distress caused by being a Witness.

  I agree it's this emotional attachment that makes one blind for all logical errors and hidden preconceptions of (scientific) creationism. There's simply no room for disbelief.
• 

  SacrificialLoon

  Entropy? They're still trying to peddle the second law of thermodynamics as a reason against living things becoming more complex? See that bright thing in the sky? It's an external energy souce!

  Screw these luddites.
• 

  funkyderek

  Here's another review of the same book. I don't think someone posting a link deserves any more comment than another posted link (or two):

  http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-i.html
  http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-ii.html
• 

  middleman

  Not only entropy but other scientific laws such as biogensis (give me a dead cell and "observe" if life comes from it) etc. As I've said before, evolution teaches that with enough TIME something did come from nothing. Can I give you nothing and in time something comes out of it?
• 

  hamilcarr

  Can I give you nothing and in time something comes out of it?

  Creatio ex nihilo is indeed no scientific teaching.

  Evolution only works on the already existent.
• 

  hooberus

  Articles like the one posted by hooberus read like an emotional appeal to the "faithful" not to leave their belief in God. There's a hook in that bait, and yet you expect me to swallow it. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.
  
  Dave

  I think that even most of the review dealt with scientific facts related to evolutionist claims, rather than "emotional" appeals. However if you need more consider getting the book (a recent version is available from www.icr.org).

  I think that the book easily demonstrates (in a clear presentation) that continued belief in the "primary axiom" of darwinism requires emotional faith in spite of evidence.

  hooberus
• 

  PrimateDave

  Hooberus, that is all fine and good. Let's assume for a moment that the author of the book is in fact quite correct in his analysis. Then what? What is the next logical step to be taken if we can in fact prove scientifically that there is an Intelligent Designer? What can we determine about that Designer via the scientific method? I am asking this in all seriousness.
  
  Dave
• 

  M.J.

  Interesting alternate explanation:

  http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm

  In its strongest version, panspermia holds that intelligent life can only descend from prior intelligent life. Logically, therefore, intelligent life must have always existed, and what we have called "evolutionary progress" would actually be the local development of pre-existing, highly evolved life. This theory is fully scientific; there is nothing supernatural about it. I am attempting to name it Cosmic Ancestry. It responds to the informed criticism that Darwinism does not account for evolutionary progress.

  Furthermore, Cosmic Ancestry does not extend science beyond its proper realm. Science can never answer some questions, like "Why is there anything at all?" According to Cosmic Ancestry, "Why is there intelligent life?" is another question that science cannot answer. Intelligent life appears to have always existed. Until evolutionary progress in a closed system is demonstrated, that’s as far as science can pursue the matter. Meanwhile, creationists are free to call intelligent life a miracle. Dissolving the disagreement between science and religion, we can turn to new questions. For example,

  • Under what circumstances, if any, is evolutionary progress in a closed system possible?
  • How could the big bang theory accommodate life from the eternal past?
  • How does intelligent life arrive and develop?
• 

  Satanus

  'darwinism requires emotional faith in spite of evidence.'
  
  What evidence? Remember, use your own words.
  
  S
• 

  XJW4EVR

  A few of my issues with evolution:

  1. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. All other fields of science recognize this fact except biology, because the presuppositions of the scientists in this discipline won't allow for an alternative.

  2. Abiogenesis has yet to be demonstrated.

  3. Dead animals don't evolve.