Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

Qcmbr

When I read these debates you know that the turkey shoot is coming to an end when the creation arguments descend into meanings of words (of course they believe in 'real' evolution just not the 'false' evolution ...lol.) I think the farce that is creationism would be better exposed if instead of the word God we substitute a proposed god's name.
"Loki did not believe he was made by Thor and many people in the world do not believe they were made by Thor. So Thor and Loki are working their challenge out and we are all participating and observing."
Myths have no place in science.
Mad Dawg

Evolution has no commercial value.
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays , wrote in 2000. [ 1 ] "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Read more: Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15676/#ixzz19rjqscYs

Bohm said:

But its not semantics to point out the central term in the article is not defined. it make it impossible to test the authors claim. that mean the author only dress up his on prior beliefs in fancy language and serve it as evidence. its simply not science.

Ya know, I think you are right.

(E)volution CAN create information.

What do you mean by "evolution"? Abiogenesis, molecules to man, natural selection? What is it? And information, with all the definitions available, how is one to tell which one you mean? None of your terms are defined. Never mind the central one. You made it impossible to test your claim.
In the above statement, a re you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article? If yes, then what is all the noise about? If no, then what is the point of the above statement? Especially as it is meaningless with its undefined terms. As you said, it simply is not science.
cofty

I dont think proving the age of the earth which always ends up being disputed is as comercially viable as figuring out how biological systems develop and work. - Jaguarbass
Interesting that you should idedntify the one area that in fact has the greatest commercial value. All over the world thousands of geologists are employed to find precious resources beneath the earth.
The oil industry is the most obvious example but the same applies to precious metals and minerals. Dr Snelling that you refered to is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation. None of these men and women could do thier job without first understanding the process of millions of years that resulted in the strata in which they search. No flood geologist could work in the oil industry without first rejecting flood geology- they would never find oil in the real world.
So yes proving the age of the earth and each of its geological layers is worth billions of dollars - no wonder Snelling denies all of his young earth views when he does his day job.
Tuesday

Hooberus - I love the fact that the sources you provide are so ridiculously biased and devoid of any scientific information. Check this out your previous post provided a link:
Its obvious that you haven't read the "in 6 days book". Thanks for the "review" though. (see previous comments)
B.T.W. I've actually read a good part of it. It doesn't have a specific "main argument" at all. Here it is:
http://creation.com/in-six-days/
As I said before:
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
OK so what is the full title of the book? "In Six Days: Why 50 SCIENTISTS Choose bo believe in Creation", how many here are not scientists, there are mathemeticians on here, there are engineers, hell they include the index as a number.

1 Werner Gitt, information science (In Six Days)
2 J.H. John Peet, chemistry (In Six Days)
3 Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days)
4 George S Hawke, meteorology (In Six Days)
5 Don B DeYoung, physics (In Six Days)
6 Wayne Frair, biology (In Six Days)
7 Geoff Downes, forestry research (In Six Days)
8 Elaine Kennedy, geology (In Six Days)
9 John Morris, geological engineering (In Six Days)
10 Andrew Snelling, geology (In Six Days)
11 Edmond W. Holroyd, meteorology (In Six Days)
12 Danny R Faulkner, astronomy (In Six Days)
13 Andrew McIntosh, mathematics (In Six Days)
14 Keith H Wanser, physics (In Six Days)
15 Jack Cuozzo, orthodontics (In Six Days)
16 Sid Cole, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
17 John R Baumgardner, geophysics (In Six Days)
18 Don Batten, agricultural science (In Six Days)
19 James S Allan, genetics (In Six Days)
20 E Theo Agard, medical physics (In Six Days)
21 In Six Days - Index
22 Henry Zuill, biology (In Six Days)
23 A J Monty White, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
24 Walter J Veith, zoology (In Six Days)
25 Larry Vardiman, meteorology (In Six Days)
26 Ker C Thomson, geophysics (In Six Days)
27 Stephen Taylor, electrical engineering (In Six Days)
28 Timothy G Standish, biology (In Six Days)
29 Jonathan D Sarfati, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
30 Ariel A Roth, biology (In Six Days)
31 John R Rankin, mathematical physics (In Six Days)
32 Stanley A Mumma, architectural engineering (In Six Days)
33 Colin W Mitchell, geography (In Six Days)
34 Angela Meyer, plant science (In Six Days)
35 John P Marcus, biochemistry (In Six Days)
36 John K G Kramer, biochemistry (In Six Days)
37 Arthur Jones, biology (In Six Days)
38 George T Javor, biochemistry (In Six Days)
39 Evan Jamieson, hydrometallurgy (In Six Days)
40 Dwain L Ford, organic chemistry (In Six Days)
41 Robert H Eckel, medical research (In Six Days)
42 George F Howe, botany (In Six Days)
43 Bob Hosken, biochemistry (In Six Days)
44 Nancy M Darrall, botany (In Six Days)
45 Stephen Grocott, inorganic chemistry (In Six Days)
46 D B Gower, biochemistry (In Six Days)
47 Paul Giem, medical research (In Six Days)
48 John M Cimbala, mechanical engineering (In Six Days)
49 Edward A Boudreaux, theoretical chemistry (In Six Days)
50 Jeremy L Walter, mechanical engineering (In Six Days)

I chose the one for Geology because I find geology interesting. No particular reason why I chose him, high on the list and in a field that interests me. Now let's read his "Scientific" reason why he's choosing Creation, let's look at all of his "proof" he provides in his statements.
Kurt P. Wise, geology
Dr Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighth grade found me extremely interested in all fields of science. For over a year, while others considered being firemen and astronauts, I was dreaming of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard University and teaching at a big university. I knew this to be an unattainable dream, for I knew it was a dream, but … well, it was still a dream. That year, the last in the series of nine years in our small country school, was terminated by the big science fair. The words struck fear in all, for not only was it important for our marks and necessary for our escape from the elementary sentence for crimes unknown, but it was also a sort of initiation to allow admittance into the big city high school the next year. The 1,200 students of the high school dwarfed the combined populations of three towns I lived closer to than that high school. Just the thought of such hoards of people scared us silly. In any case, the science fair was anticipated years in advance and I started work on mine nearly a year ahead of the fair itself.
I decided to do my science fair project on evolution. I poured myself into its study. I memorized the geologic column. My father and I constructed a set of wooden steps representing geologic time where the run of each step represented the relative length of each period. I bought models and collected fossils. I constructed clay representations of fossils I did not have and sketched out continental/ocean configurations for each period. I completed the colossal project before the day of the fair. Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.
At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, “What if the days were millions of years long?” After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not—at least not completely.
What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth—or at least at the same time—and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.
It didn’t work. Over the next couple of years, the conflict of order nagged me. No matter how I tried, I could not keep the matter out of mind. Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.
In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought—that science couldn’t be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.
The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse—nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.
With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
Beginning only a couple of weeks later, however, God began to show me that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true. It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel). This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See ‘I have the Bible—what more do I need?’] Here I must stand.
Look at those highlighted "reasons", now why on Earth would anyone refer to something like that as "scientific reasons for creationism"?
Hooberus, I'm dead serious I want you to tell me exactly why you would refer to this above passage as evidence at all? Please point out the scientific data, and could you tell me why if a scientist has to put away all of his evidence so he can believe in young earth creationims, why you will take his unfounded claims as proof instead of all the evidence he had to put aside?
I didn't even get to a second person in the link you provided
Joey Jo-Jo

A lot of people resort to pseudoscience to push their point across.
hooberus

Look at those highlighted "reasons", now why on Earth would anyone refer to something like that as "scientific reasons for creationism"?
I don't see anyone here specifically referring to "those" highlighted reasons as "scientific reasons" for creationism.
Hooberus, I'm dead serious I want you to tell me exactly why you would refer to this above passage as evidence at all?
I didn't refer to the above passage at all specifically -let alone as "[scientific] evidence".
You fail to understand that the book insn't meant to be solely and only a scientific apologetic, but instead a series of individual testimonies as to "why 50 scientists believe in creation". Therefore the book gives a variety of reasons as to what influenced them, yes some are scriptural , and some are scientific.
To refresh your memory,
1. Another poster recommended this book for scientific information supportinig biblical creationism, and it does contain much in that way, along with biblical and other reasons as well (perhaps he should have stated this as well to you).
2. You then (obviously without reading it), tried to dismiss it as faulty because of an alleged faulty "main [scientific] argument" I simply pointed out that you obviously hadn't read it since it contains no speciifc "main [scientific] argument." I also then posted the online book for anyone to see.
3. Your resonse was then to highlight some scriptural reasons from one of the 50 authors and then pretend that he (and I) refer to "those" reasons as "scientific reasons" for creationism.
Please point out the scientific data, and could you tell me why if a scientist has to put away all of his evidence so he can believe in young earth creationims, why you will take his unfounded claims as proof instead of all the evidence he had to put aside?
Apparently you can't read even your own paste carefully, since the author states that in his opinion "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".
bohm

:MD:
But its not semantics to point out the central term in the article is not defined. it make it impossible to test the authors claim. that mean the author only dress up his on prior beliefs in fancy language and serve it as evidence. its simply not science.
Ya know, I think you are right.
holy crap, obves is right, it really is going to happend this year! ;-).
"(E)volution CAN create information.
What do you mean by "evolution"? Abiogenesis, molecules to man, natural selection? What is it? And information, with all the definitions available, how is one to tell which one you mean? None of your terms are defined. Never mind the central one. You made it impossible to test your claim.
In the above statement, a re you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article? If yes, then what is all the noise about? If no, then what is the point of the above statement? Especially as it is meaningless with its undefined terms. As you said, it simply is not science."
now we are getting somewhere. By evolution i mean the process of evolution (mutation, selection, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(biologi)).
As far as information you are right to point out the ambiguity. There are different constructs scientists and mathematicians call "information", the two most important ones is shannon information and kolmogorov complexity. Both of these has an immense litterature and are very well-defined quantities, and both of them has many interesting practical applications (eg. principle of maximum entropy and minimum description length). In other words, they work.
because there are different constructs that one can call "information" the first clear sign the author is bullshitting is when he does not point out which construct he use (or if he is inventing one himself).
Evolution (as defined above) increase the amount of information no matter which measure one use and it is trivial to demonstrate. Take kolmogorov complexity (which is the length of the minimal program which can output a given sequence) and consider a sequence of DNA like: "ABATAAATTTDDD" (repeated 500 times), now consider the same sequence randomized by various mutations; the kolmogorov complexity of the last sequence will be larger than the first.
What did we learn here? NOTHING! Stating that evolution can increase the information in the genomen does not tell us anything because it is so trivially true. The central point is if evolution can create something "usefull" out of something which is not "usefull" (for example a new proteine). What the author does is that he believe evolution cannot do such a thing, then wrap the claim into some fancy language, and serve it as proof. Nothing is learned that way!
One very important thing the author miss is that evolution can create usefull things. it has been demonstrated in the laboratory, for example in the case of the "nylon-eating" bacteria.
hooberus

now we are getting somewhere. By evolution i mean the process of evolution (mutation, selection, etc. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(biologi)
).
Evolution (as defined above) increase the amount of information no matter which measure one use and it is trivial to demonstrate. Take kolmogorov complexity (which is the length of the minimal program which can output a given sequence) and consider a sequence of DNA like: "ABATAAATTTDDD" (repeated 500 times), now consider the same sequence randomized by various mutations; the kolmogorov complexity of the last sequence will be larger than the first.
A brief question on this subject bohm.
Would you also say that randomizing your posts with various letter mutations will also increase the amount of information no mater what measure one uses?
THE GLADIATOR

Life is change. Evolution and paradigm shifts are just part of the process. Living things are evolving and organisms tend to arrange themselves into more complicated structures. The whole universe is in a constant state of evolution and change.
I can't understand why some people think that one has to 'believe in' or 'embrace' evolution. Belief per say, requires faith; often faith in the unseen or unproven. An interest in new scientific discoveries about our world and its history, does not amount to a belief.
bohm

hooberus: depends on the model. If we use the model i outlined before, then yes, the more noise and the more random the message is, the more information it will contain (compared to the quite regular structure of a correctly spelled post in english).
However, since we have a sender and a resiever and an encoding, a better model would be to consider my posts as a chanel where a number of words need to be transferred. The randomization (spelling errors, etc.) would then be considered noise. The more noise the lower the shannon capacity, and the longer the message has to be to send the same amount of information.

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

Share this