So the way Louisiana has been I was surprised to see this published by the Louisiana Coalition for Science, for background on this story see my post here.
Readers will have to pardon the mixed metaphors in this post, but something happened today in Louisiana that is is about as common here as snowflakes at Christmas: the voice of reason prevailed at a meeting of public officials.
The Louisiana Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council met today, Friday, November 12, at 9 a.m. at the Claiborne Building in downtown Baton Rouge. The council voted 8-4 to recommend approval of the biology books that had already been approved by the Textbook Review Committee. Teachers, scientists, and students showed up at this meeting to support the earlier decision of the Textbook Review Committee and to protest the attempt by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) to commandeer yet another aspect of Louisiana science education policy.
This is a big win for Louisiana students and I am happy to see that a lot of people showed up in support of science education, although it isn't completely supp rising. I don't have much to say so I will let Barbara Forrest carry us out on this one.
Well, gosh, let’s hope this decision paves the way for BESE’s approval of the textbooks. Regardless of what happens next month, all of us owe a big “thank you” to the good citizens who showed up at that meeting today.
So after my post last night I was delighted to see this short opinion piece by the Baton Rouge Advocate's opinion staff earlier this afternoon. They argue, and rightly so, that evolution is a science supported by the facts and that Louisiana doesn't want to turn into the next Texas or Kansas and be the laughing stock of the U.S. and even the world.
But it is the duty of the committee members not to be politicians — a couple of the members are state legislators — or representatives of public opinion. The committee members have a duty to reject intrusion of pseudo-science, such as creationism or its offshoot “intelligent design,” into science classrooms.
[...]It’s one thing to be different culturally, as Louisiana is in so many ways. But the facts of science and biology do not change. For Louisiana to be different in the direction of ignorance would be a humiliation in the eyes of the nation and the world.
Let me just say this, thank you Baton Rouge Advocate for supporting true science education!
I first noticed this yesterday as a post by the NCSE on Facebook and then saw today's post over at Louisiana Coalition for Science. The second post give a pretty good summary of the whole history of the attempts to teach creationism in Louisiana. Pretty much this story boils down to there are forces within the Louisiana state education board to put warning stickers on the textbooks teaching about evolution in that it isn't completely true. This isn't the way science works as I have said many times before science is supported by evidence that has been found and experimented on over multiple trials, just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true. You don't want to learn the science that is fine you just need to find the evidence that supports your claim. Anyway read the second post up above to find out more.
Chemistry teacher Robert Eschbach, who was also a plaintiff, says the trial has made teachers less afraid to step on people's toes when it comes to evolution. It "forced me to be a better educator", he says. "I went back and read more of the history around Darwin and how he came to his conclusions."
None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of "academic freedom".
Philosopher Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, another key witness for the Dover plaintiffs in 2005, testified against the Louisiana education act. "Louisiana is the only state to pass a state education bill based on the Discovery Institute's template," she says. Similar measures considered in 10 other states were all defeated
I think the article has too broad a focus and needed to pick either talking about the Dover trial itself or about the current brand of creationism taking place in the U.S. right now and why it gets so much support. I have covered the controversy in Livingston Parish in a coupleof earlier posts but I feel the Dover trial forced a major change in the way that creationists operate and in fact has made it more difficult for them to try to force their religion into science class.
How do you tell that I think something is a hot button issue? Three posts on it in less than a week. The issue is the Discovery Institute's event at SMU last week. When we last leftthe issue a group of professors had written a letter to the SMU school paper. This morning another article was published in the same paper, this one by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies a Dr. Mark A. Chancey. Dr. Chancey does not say what one might expect from a professor of religious studies he says that evolution is a scientific theory and ID is at its heart a religious theory.
Intelligent Design (ID) has not gained much traction in the scientific community. It originated within certain religious circles and has credibility only within those same circles-mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening.
This is true ID is a religious idea a court case can attest to this fact, see Kitzmiller v. Dover. Dr. Chancey then brings up something that I really thought was important and did not know prior to this, and it helps explain why there was so much backlash against the DI at SMU.
Why the sensitivity over IDers' appearance at SMU? Here, historical context is important.
Unfortunately, the Discovery Institute has a track record of using SMU's prestige and academic reputation to bolster its own claims to legitimacy. Consider this quote from Phillip E. Johnson, a chief ID architect: "The movement we now call the Wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992."
Johnson goes on to characterize that conference as "a respectable academic gathering." This language implies that SMU sponsored an academic conference in which ID proponents participated as full-fledged scholars. In fact, the 1992 event, too, was sponsored not by any academic unit of the university but by a campus ministry-a detail conspicuously absent from Johnson's description.
He goes on to describe the "Wedge Document", another interesting read if you haven't seen it. Read the rest of the article and learn but also learn why there should be a separation between science and religion.
A few days ago I talked about the Discovery Institute event that was held at SMU earlier this week. Well this post came out on Friday over at Religion Dispatches and it is worth another quick read. The author sums of ID pretty well here:
As Discovery Institute fellow Jonathan Wells said about the event in a news release, “The evidence is clear: Darwin was wrong about the origin of new species, organs and body plans. We are ready to show the next generation of young scientists just how wrong Darwin was.”
Of course, one of Discovery Institute’s featured tactics is to pretend that Darwin’s theory exists in a vacuum and that the scientific world has learned nothing in the past 150 years to advance knowledge of evolution and how it works. Destroy Darwin, destroy evolution.
But in order to make that argument, they must conveniently discount, ignore or just lie about the vast amount of information made since then in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and evolutionary development. Perhaps to bring him up to speed a bit on the past century and a half, I’d like to make a helpful suggestion to Wells. He should read Sean Carroll’s wonderful book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful (Norton, 2005) for an understanding of how the evolution of genetic switches led to the formation of complex body forms in all their infinite and amazing variations.
OK sorry for all of the posts just sharing links I swear eventually I will write a longer post.
Last Thursday night the Discovery Institute (DI) and their "research" wing known as the Biologic Institute sponsored an event entitled "4 Nails in Darwin's Coffin" on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas. The DI are obviously the main proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). Knowing people who had attended SMU I knew that there would be a fair sized group of people who don't think the same things as DI. It turns out I was right, yesterday the school paper, the Daily Campus, published an article signed by several of the faculty of SMU saying that what DI said was not what the science said. The article included a link to a page that, while still a work in progress, shows all of the errors in the ID idea. This webpage also links to a webpage that shows how SMU truly feels about Darwin's theory of evolution.
It also turns out that the event was recorded, I will embed the first video here but will include links to the others below, it looks like it was a long event.
I have been working on this book for probably about 6 months now and finally decided that if I was ever going to finish another book I wanted to read it was going to have to be by reading a chapter or so a night right before I go to bed. The book that I read for this review was Why Darwin Matters by Dr. Michael Shermer.
This book is very much a dismantling of the intelligent design community saying that what they practice is science, the fact that the subtitle is "The case against Intelligent Design" should have been a dead give away for that. While many people have written books about it (see Only a Theoryhere). Dr Shermer takes on ID by not just showing what they believe is a religion and how all of their main claims are wrong, but he also shows how evolution is the correct theory. The back cover reads:
In Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer, the bestselling author of Why People Believe Weird Things and the publisher of Skeptic magazine, decodes the facts of evolution and shows how natural selection achieves the elegant design of life. Shermer, once an evangelical Christian and a creationist, argues that Intelligent Design proponents invoke a combination of bad, science, political antipathy, and flawed theology in their new brand of creationism. He refutes their pseudoscientific arguments and then demonstrates why conservatives and people of faith can and should embrace evolution. Why Darwin Matters is an incisive examination of what is at stake in the debate over evolution.
I really did enjoy this book it was an easy read and when I set myself too it I got through it very quickly. The data he presents is well supported and he handles the situation including the victory in Dover very humbly. He also shows why those who present themselves as Christians and Conservatives should really accept evolution. The book tends to strive away from the technical and lays out the case in a way everyone should be able to understand it.
Dr. Shermer is a very strong Atheist but it did not come off in this book. In fact if you were just a casual reader you might even be inclined to think that he is a Christian, although this might come from his devout Christian up bringing. I would recommend this book to anyone who might be questioning evolution, I only limit because those devoutly religious who already outright deny evolution probably won't read this at all. Read it see why science is important, the real questions in evolutionary theory currently (and how they are being solved), and how science and religion tackle very separate questions.
Book Citation
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. 2006. Holt: New York
So I have been sitting at 99 posts for a long time but I feel so proud I have somehow managed to put together 100 posts, counting this one. Yay! go me.
Ok now on to the real reason for this post. So one of the opinion writers, Roy Long, for the Texas Tech University paper, the Daily Toreador, has published some things before that I have disagreed with majorly (see here and trust me there are more that I didn't blog about), well he did it again. While the majority of the article (found here) I have no problem with it is about being able to change our views as new evidence comes forth, heck this is what science is all about. In fact early on he says this:
If I could travel in time and re-write those articles, I would change a few of them.
I would be more careful about wording because certain phrases I have used in columns have offended others and caused them to not pay attention to the message of the column.
Yes this is very true many times does the point of his article get lost in amongst some small piece of evidence he uses to "support" his view that is outright wrong. I will openly admit that I have had to relook over some of his articles because of this. But in the end doesn't this come down to the writer of the article?
Well this doesn't seem bad so far I was actually enjoying the article and he was making a valid point then he says this:
However, our society does not act this way. One glaring example is “Climategate.” The scientific community has been afraid to even accept data that might possibly argue the so-called climate change theory is wrong. They intentionally changed data so there would be no opposition to their theories. This is the ultimate appeal to dishonest consistency.
I literally put the paper on my desk at this point. I thought alright well climate change is still a developing science so maybe he was just confused or maybe he just hasn't read the full e-mails (see here, here, and here for starters). So I picked the paper back up and read this:
The response to the “intelligent design” theory has also been very similar. Instead of addressing the issues that have arose from Behe’s ideas, the scientific community at large has simply dismissed him because he dares question the god of evolution. Science, which was once progressive because it dared to contradict the wrong but established theories of men, has fallen to dogmatism.
I know rushed through the rest of his article and went out in the hall looking for someone to talk to, seeing no one I relaxed and read the rest of his article again. Why did this paragraph draw such a reaction out of me? Because Behe is wrong and intelligent design is not science and therefore should be dismissed by the scientific community (see Kitzmiller vs. Dover). I could cite the hundreds of people who have refuted ID as an invalid theory but in science it only takes one so may I recommend Only a Theory by Dr. Kenneth Miller (see my post here).
So why are these your two examples in the entire paper when both of them are the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove? Both ID and global climate change denialists (doesn't have the same ring as global warming denialists) are doing what you are claiming you are against. They are trying the keep the status quo the same they are not admitting they are wrong and moving on. With global climate change the e-mails were quote mined to get just a couple of quotes that sound like global climate change isn't happening or at least isn't man made. At least IDers see that there is some evidence for evolution but they still want God in there. Guess what that is still a very unprogressive statement.
So somewhere along the lines I really lost what Mr. Long was trying to argue so congrats Mr. Long you have successfully written another article that does the complete opposite of what you were trying to achieve.
So apparently William Dembski has a problem with a private organization doing something to help shine light on religion. It is a short post on the Uncommon Descent blog and you can find the post here.
The start of his post he says this:
You’ve got to wonder what an organization that touts itself for critical thinking is thinking when it sponsors a BLASPHEMY CONTEST:
I'll tell you what they were thinking they were thinking that they, the Center for Inquiry, a group of Atheists, Agnostics, and FREE THINKERS could hold a contest where people could...THINK. And that is the great thing about the US is that we are free to do that there are plenty of places in the world where this would not be allowed at all. So sure lets spread the word of this contest. Go ahead enter there are people around here in West Texas that could use a good bit of blasphemy and the opportunity will be given on September 30th when the Secular Student Society of Texas Tech University will be having a sell your soul for a cookie table. But I encourage all of you to enter this contest that includes you Bill
Since Darwin is their god, it would be interesting to submit to this contest true statements about Darwin’s less than divine attributes.
Although none of that would be novel since I am sure every supporter has heard them all before but good luck.
I decided I would make it easier to navigate for all those who might come across this blog later so I am going to link all of my posts on the 30 Reasons series so here we go:
Part 4 can be found here and the article I am refuting can be found here.
We shall finally finish this article in this post.
21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.
Just like a beaver wouldn’t build a dam without first drawing up a plan. For this one I am going to do something that I should have done for all the other ones and ask you to provide me with the evidence showing that there must, “be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity.”
22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!
First off it is not the atoms that have to form into enzymes etc it is the compounds they make up and we already know that atoms form organic compounds after all they have been found even in space. Secondly it is a good thing that the real world does not behave exactly the way that mathematics always predicts. But this is off of the old you have to hit the jackpot x number of times in a row. A better example would be to show a slot machine that you can stop one row at a time. Let’s say you get the first row right then you can begin to focus on the second row then the third etc.
23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.
Evolution does not have a goal in mind so therefore it is not progressing upward it is just progressing. As far as the eye in concerned I suggest you watch this:
A transitional species is not transitional at the time it is alive it is only when we look back at the fossil record and see what game both before and after that we can get away with calling it transitional. After all you and I are transitions between our parents and our children but we don’t think about ourselves in that light.
24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.
25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).
Just because these things are incredibly complex is not evidence that they could not have evolved I have already pointed out the evolution of the eye there is no reason that all of the rest of these processes could have evolved through natural means.
26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communi- cation [sic] system.
I don’t know what single celled organism he is looking at. Yes they are complex but our cells are more complex than single celled organisms.
27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.
Life forms are not irreducibly complex see Only a Theory by Dr. Ken Miller. You are right in a human it requires DNA to produce RNA but that is not the way it works in all organisms in fact there are some viruses, like HIV, that use RNA to produce DNA. Search reverse transcriptase.
28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.
We see design in nature because that is what was helpful to keep us alive out in the natural world in which we evolved. If some grass moves and you think it is a lion and it is only the wind but you run from it anyway you are still alive. If, however, the grass moves and you think it is the wind and it is a lion so you don’t run then you our lion dinner. The PLASTIC comb is a bad example because the only way that plastic is made only by HUMANS so we know it has a maker since we have seen or can see someone go make one.
If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.
Sure about that?
We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.
Because all of these things always work so perfectly. As far as the blood clots and cilia of cells are concerned I again refer you to Only a Theory. Our body instinctively rejects everything you put into it. This is part of why they give people getting another person’s organ anti-rejection drugs. Our bodies easily could kill us while fighting off an infection, this is the reason why people get fevers.
29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!
30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.
How so? Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining sex, see History Channel’s episode of Evolution on sex. Symbiosis and altruism are even easier and there is plenty of published material on both of these. In general both of these exist because they help the organisms survive better which is after all what evolution is all about.
I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.
I agree with him that education is the most important thing in this world. However, as I pointed out at the start of this critique as people go further and further through the education program and learn more and more of the true facts that exist they see that evolution is actually true.
Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?
Maybe this:
A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!
How so?
That is what is so important about it and why evolutionists cling to their faith position concerning it. Evolution is a religion of conveniences. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which people may mentally justify that there is no God. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which they may mentally justify that they may lead a sinless life with Jesus Christ. The Bible declares that this is manifest delusion.
I don’t know why people are so insistent in saying that evolution is how people justify atheism. Science is by nature agnostic and since it is constantly changing as we find more evidence it isn’t like it has a set dogma that never changes, unlike something I know of.
Paul used creation to lead the Greek evolutionists of Athens to Christ. (See Acts Chapter 17) Paul wrote a letter to the evolutionists warning of the consequences of evolutionary philosophy. (See Romans Chapter 1:16+) Paul told Timothy to avoid pseudo-science because it caused people to fall away from the faith. (See 1 Timothy 6:20-21) Peter warned us about what evolutionists would say in our time. (See 2 Peter 3:3-7) You and I need to do the same thing in our time. You and I need to:
‘Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might.
Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil [Evolutionary Just So Stories]. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness [those who would teach evolution theory without revocation], against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, [the whole counsel of God] that you may be able to resist in the evil day [in our time], and having done everything, to stand firm.
Stand firm, therefore, having girded your loins with truth [in part, the knowledge of the truths of creation science], and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. [If we have our minds right, then false arguments will have no effect on us.]
Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. [Use the Berean method of proof. If it doesn't line up with God's word, then it is to be rejected.]’
Ok I am not a biblical scholar but pretty much what I get out of all of that no matter how much logic and well reasoned arguments one uses against you reject them because a book that was written 2000 years ago in the Middle East is clearly more accurate.
In conclusion it is pretty obvious that all of these arguments have been raised by other people multiple times in the past but creationists are clearly not listening to the arguments I raised back at him. Evolution is a scientific fact and as a process continues to this day. Most of the arguments against his points are easily found on a quick search on the internet and in this day in age in which the internet is at the hands of an ever growing number of people that there are still people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 7 days.
Thanks for sticking with me and hopefully my next few posts won't be quite as long
Part 3 can be found here and the article I am refuting can be found here.
Lets pick up where we left off:
11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the ‘Tree of Life’ so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.
He is right about this we don’t really see a “Tree of Life” but more of a, as I once saw AronRa say, a bush of life. We do not find complex organisms early in the fossil record as he would have you believe what we find instead it simple single celled organisms. But these found a niche so they are still alive today we then further up the bush find multicellular organisms. These take up less of the bush then the single celled organism but they each find their own niche and relatives of them are found today. We however do not have multicellular organisms appearing at the very bottom of the fossil layers as the author would have you believe.
12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.
It seems to me like we have heard this point before yup it is pretty much a repeat of point 4, really running out of points already come on. My evidence back would be the same as point 4 so in case you don’t remember go look there.
13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artist's depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artist's illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.
He is right artists renderings are done so that a layperson can more easily visualize the creatures that are present in the fossil record. It also doesn’t show you the tons of information that leads scientists to the conclusions that they do. Oh and cows did not evolve into whales it was an organism more like a modern wolf, for more on whale evolution there are plenty of papers but I recommend this one: Thewissen, J., L. Cooper, J. George, and S. Bajpai. From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evolution: Education and Outreach)
14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feasts of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all "ages" of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.
Why are the more complex because we currently cannot understand them? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Number_of_words_in_English not only is English complex but it is growing constantly. Ask a former non-speaker how difficult it was to learn English yes I can assure you we have much more complicated languages now. As for the engineering it may seem hard but we know how they were done and despite what you might hear on TV if we needed or wanted to build what they built we could do and we could probably do it quicker than they did. Continuing on these ages are marked by what was used primarily and what was new. People did not use Bronze before the Bronze age nor did they use Iron before the Iron Age because it requires a set of skills that they had not yet learned. Finally on this point, did we always have internet, how about computers, or how about airplanes, cars, etc there is plenty of new stuff constantly coming out “under the sun.”
The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.
15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics) Interesting a physics law being applied to biology. If you can find in there where it makes a statement about evolution go right ahead. As far as the intelligence part. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants and saw further than they did. We continue to do that today we used what was learned before and build on it does that mean the people before us were more intelligent than us as the author would have us believe? No we just use what they knew to learn and it will be continued for as long as humanity exists unless we fall into another dark ages.
We are now half way done with his points everyone take a quick break.
Alright back to it.
16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.
I want to start by saying that this is the first time I have heard the First law of Thermodynamics used to argue against evolution so I will give the author props there but that is all he gets. He did however get wrong what the first law says (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics). It says nothing about biology and really cannot be used to argue any point in fact it is just a set up for the second law (which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) and since there is no reason for me to argue a point that someone else has already done I pass you on to…ok so I found one for the first law so first to the ExtantDodo:
For the second law we go to again to the Dodo:
17. The concept of a ‘Big Bang’ producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.
Well then it is a good thing that the Big Bang was not actually an explosion but an expansion of space time. It also has zero to do with biological evolution of which was the point of this originally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be ‘born.’ The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.
19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.
Again it is a good thing that this doesn’t deal with evolution. Nevermind the fact that scientists don’t say that life came from nonlife. And that they actually say that organic molecules over time came together to form ever more complex structures and eventually from this life was able to develop. The question is where do you start life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.
What scientific law is this? I can look out my window right now and can find an example that refutes what you are saying right away and that is simply the sun. The energy from the sun is just directed out into space but some of it happens to shine on us here. That sunlight though undirected is what allows photosynthesis to happen, it is what allows the ground to heat, my skin to burn etc.
So in Part 5 we will go through the final 10 on the list and finish up the rest of the article
2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We "discover" new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)
3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)
Except for those lizards cited above some of which went from carnivores to herbivores and had to develop a way to digest the plant matter so they created a new system out of what they already have. But we also shouldn’t see much in the way of organ evolution because it is a long slow process.
4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the ‘missing links’ because they are missing, not there, don't exist.
The day that we see one “kind” become another “kind” is the day that evolution is disproven. Evolution does not predict cats turning into dog or whatever it is a stepwise process. In 1000000 your descendants will not look anything like you but if you followed each step in between you might not even notice the subtle differences between each successive generation. As far as the no “missing links” if you mean like the famous crocoduck then I will admit defeat we don’t have any of those, but then again we don’t expect to, but what we do have are these:
5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from nonliving material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.
Evolution does not make a statement about how life came into being that would be abiogenesis. But just for the sake of argument let’s say I know a little bit about abiogenesis. 1) It does not argue that life came from non-life in fact we have found organic compounds in space now which help lead to a higher likelihood of this being true 2) Isn’t that what the literal creation story says anyway aren’t we all made from clay? As for the bit about life reproducing after its own “kind” I have never had anyone tell me what a kind is but as I said line up your past and future relatives and then just look at the two end points say 20 generations apart and tell me how similar they look.
6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the ‘upward’ progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.
This point is fun from the very start. Mutations are no the “supposed driving mechanism of evolution” they are the raw material from which natural selection can “choose.” They provide the genetic diversity that makes each individual of a species unique and different from all of the others. I will agree that most mutations in nature are neutral and that a good majority are harmful in the current environment but it is when the environment changes that allows a previously harmful mutation to become a beneficial mutation. We will use the example of the gene that causes sickle cell. This is a harmful mutation for the people that have it but it also provides a resistance to malaria this is beneficial mutation. So what do we want well in the modern world of medicine sickle cell is a disease that people can get treatment for and can live a relatively normal life. This allows the gene to proliferate and what is even better is that in a person that has both the gene for sickle cell and one of the opposite they still get the malaria resistance. This is a long way of saying that mutation most definitely occurs in the mind and has allowed us to create medicines as well as elsewhere in the gene pool.
7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.
Interesting but I fail to see how extinction of species is proof of either stasis; of which global climate change, volcanism, etc also apply; but also how this is proof of creation. As far as your last point couple of points I direct you to the Dr. Bruce McFadden paper found here (MacFadden, B.J. 2005. EVOLUTION: Fossil Horses—Evidence for Evolution. Science, 307(5716):1728-1730.).
8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (‘younger’ and ‘older’ layers found in repeating sequences). ‘Out of place’ fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.
Let me start at the bottom of this statement first. An out of place fossil would be one that was found in a layer that is not of the age that the suspected fossil should be found in example would be finding a mammal in a Mississippian age strata. This has not ever been found if it was then it would falsify evolution right away. But a quick search of the scientific literature finds that this has never happened. Now on to the rest of his point…By “fossil layers” I am going to assume that he means fossil bearing rock layers or just rock layers because there are very few layers in the rock record that consist solely of fossils. He is right in saying that the rock layers are not always perfectly horizontal sometimes flipped upside down and often times just downright missing. But these imperfections in the rock layer can be explained through the process of mountain building via plate tectonics the same pressures that bend rock also cause it to flip. But we can typically distinguish between a rock layer that is laying the way it is supposed to be and one that has been flipped. As for the missing layers that one is easy and simply deals with erosion. All areas of the United States that are currently dry land will not have a rock record for right now where as the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes will have a near complete record. Now my guess is that our author did not make it the whole way through intro geology but instead stopped going after the first class because all of these processes are covered in the class but we start with the simplest aka the law of superposition.
9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.
As far as the large animal skeletons being found vertical the only ones I know of that have been are the mammoths pulled out of the not yet compressed permafrost soil layers in the Arctic regions. As for the rest:
10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.
No we have evidence for life that is much older than 620 million years old in fact we have evidence of communal existence of single celled organisms at 3.4 billion years (source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#strange_past) And we have solid evidence for multicellular life at the end of the Precambrian 580-545 million years (source: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html). In fact trilobite evolution occurred from at least 545 million years ago till they went extinct at the end of the Permian during the Permo-Triassic Extinction event (source: http://www.trilobites.info/geotime.htm). By the way isn’t it interesting that he uses as evidence against evolution one of the best examples of evolution we have today as well as one that does not currently exist and helps disprove the 6 day creation.
So we are now 1/3 of the way through the list. Part 4 will be the next 10 statments of the list.
Part 1 can be found here. And again the originial article can be found here
Ok so after that long interlude there let’s get into the actual article.
Evolutionists do not want us to teach in our public schools the science that shows the validity of creation. They want us to teach only their (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling) Just So Stories.
As with most “evolutionists” I wait with baited breath for someone to 1) Prove evolution wrong and 2) Prove without a shadow of a doubt that their creation view is right it is only when you do one of those two things that we will allow you to teach your “Just So Stories” in the classroom.
Personally, I believe that we should teach evolution side-by-side with creation giving equal scientific emphasis and have our students learn to think critically. Let us show them both and allow them to decide for themselves which one they will believe because origins is a faith position. Evolutionists reject this two model approach to teaching about origins because they inherently know that they will lose every time.
That sounds all good but again where is your evidence for creation? That is what it is going to take to get it in the classroom, if you can get out a peer reviewed article showing evidence for creation then I am all for allowing it to be taught in a classroom. What is scientific fact is not found out in a high school science classroom that is only where we teach the ideas that we have found to be true, it is found in a laboratory. But let’s play your game we should teach all the sides to an issue right? Well then we need to teach all the different Native American creation stories as well as the Hindu, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, and Norse. If someone has a creation story it needs to be taught so we are giving our students every side to the issue so they can make up their own minds.
If they will not allow the teaching in our public schools of the science to support creation and adamantly defend the teaching of evolution only, that is fine with me - as long as we teach the students more about evolution than the evolutionists do. If we teach students ALL about evolution then they will realize that evolution is intellectually bankrupt.
For the start of this paragraph see my above paragraph. You know you are right we don’t teach our high school students everything about evolution because it is a complex process. We teach them the basics because we could spend years teaching them all the details of evolution and they still wouldn’t know it all. This is obviously something this writer has not done, I say this not out of an insult to the writer but because by him saying that evolution is “intellectually bankrupt,” he is insulting all those who study the process, all those people who use evolution to create drugs and vaccines so that we may live better lives, and all those of us who are alive today thanks to the study of evolution. Again though if evolution is so “intellectually bankrupt” then why has no one published so in a peer reviewed journal?
Please allow us to teach the students the truth about the implications of the Laws of Science, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how these Laws disprove evolution. Please allow us to teach the truth about the whole and complete nature of natural processes, like photosynthesis and metamorphosis, and how these could not possible come into existence by random chance. Please allow us to teach the truth about what is really in the ground, like the out of order layers and polystrate fossils, as opposed to what evolutionists say is in the ground.
How the first two deal with evolution has always gotten me. Now I know we will cover most of these later on so I don’t want to cover them here it is just a waste of time.
Please allow us to teach the truth about the hoaxes and frauds that have been authenticated and perpetuated by evolutionists then later had to be retracted. Please allow us to teach the truth about: Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, English Peppered Moths, the Horse Series, Pithecanthropus alalus, Galapagos Finch Beaks, embryonic recapitulation and the Monera.
Although most of these aren’t completely hoaxes or frauds, especially the “horse series” and the “Galapagos Finch Beaks”, those that are truly hoaxes and frauds were discovered to be so by Scientists. This is the way science works when someone publishes something that isn’t true or doesn’t really work other scientists while trying to replicate his results find it impossible and call him on it viola science!
Please allow us to teach the students the truth about how the acceptance of evolution is the foundational justification to promote: human racism, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, pornography, and all the other immoral and unethical activities within our society.
Really wow I didn’t know that. I guess germ and cell theory have the same goal in mind? The purpose of evolution is to explain how the life on this earth came to be how it is today. As I have stated in my blog previously science is by its very definition agnostic and on the same note it is also apolitical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I wait patiently for you to present me with the evidence for this.
Yes, I am convinced! We need to teach more about evolution is our public schools, not less!
As am I although I also feel that we need to teach more math, English, other foreign languages, social studies/history, and other sciences.
With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is wrong with evolution.
And I intend on showing you how all 30 are wrong so that creationists cannot ever use these arguments again!
So it end up being 15 pages of text when written out in Word so I am going to cut this into a couple of different parts so it can be read instead of just skimming over it all. Ok so lets get started.
Ok so I wanted to start by doing an in depth talk about the organization of who put this article up. The writer of this article may or may not have anything to do with the organization, and based on where he is out of I would say no. There is not much out there on this organization but based on where their contact information points you towards, see here, I would say they are out of South Africa. I will let you read their beliefs by yourself, see here, so you can get a little more background about them but I just want to quote one thing from them, “CFT accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God.” That should tell you about all you need to know about them.
So next we will move on to the person who actually wrote the article itself a "Prof. Dr Grady McMurtry". So I did a quick Google search and came across this: http://www.hudson.nu/blog/2008/12/dr-grady-mcmurtry-what-are-his.html. The writer of this article did all of the hard work for me so I suggest you take the time to read most of the article, the part about his family relation is not important to the discussion of his argument against Evolution. I just want to point out that he does have a doctorate but that it is in Theology and that his BS and MS are in forestry a field that is only partially relevant to the discussion on Evolution. Also calling himself a Professor is all well and good but why go by both Professor and Dr?
Anyway enough about Dr McMurtry lets move along to the article itself.
The article starts with the "QUOTES OF THE DAY" (yes if you haven't read the article it is written in all caps), the first one of which is by some fellow by the name of George Washington. Update: It turns out the George Washington was the first President of the United States and some sort of General or something, who knew! :-)
'No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the invisible affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. . . . We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained.' President George Washington
So this quote is only taken slightly out of context and I wouldn't go so far as to even call it a quote mine. What I would say, however, is that he is trying to put words in his mouth. But don't just agree/disagree with me the whole speech is located here: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/inaugural/final.html Now the reason that I say that is not because President Washington was a Deist like so many of the other founding fathers it is because, as you can see here: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html, we don't actually know what his religion was. We don't know this because he like most people felt religion was a personal issue and not one that should be paraded around like so many of our politicans feel they need to today, see here. The President felt, as did most of the founding fathers, that there should be a seperation of church and state and I feel that by using this quote here you are saying that not only did he support your view on religion, which not only do we not know what he support we are pretty certian that he would have disagreed with you based soley on seperation of church and state, but that he felt that Evolution is wrong and that creationism should be taught in schools. This last point is almost certianly false because Evolution doesn't even get published till 70 years after this speech was given so he wouldn't have known about it.
’ If we are ignorant of the historical sacrifices that made our liberties possible, we will be less likely to make the sacrifices again so that those liberties are preserved for future generations. And, if we are ignorant, we wont even know when government infringes on our liberties. Moreover, we will happily cast our votes for those who would destroy our liberties.’ Walter Williams
So I don’t really have anything to say on this quote mostly because it deals with politics and not science so I don’t see any reason to go into it and I really don’t see the point, so why include it because I promised to include everything. The next quote is by someone very familiar.
’ The solution to evolution is education!’ Dr. Grady S. McMurtry
Yes it is by our good friend Dr. McMurtry. Now there are many problems with this quote, besides the fact that it is wrong as we will see as we go through the rest of his points. The main one is that he is quoting himself. Now normally that would be normal and in fact it happens all the time in science papers but unless he has said it in another work, in which case he will need to quote it later, he is quoting something that hasn’t been said yet. If I was him I would have included another quote maybe one from a “evolutionist” saying how evolution is wrong, e.g. the Gould quote or one of the many other favorites of creationists to quote mine.
Part 2 can be found here and as always I always welcome your comments.
It is a good read and does a really good job of refuting the same designer same material argument. There is one other thing that I would add and it is quite simply this. Yes most people only see a computer program going from 1.0-2.0 etc for most things like windows, however, if you ever look at the version of software such as Google Earth or AIM you will see that you end up with 4.95 before you finally get to version 5. You also often end up with beta versions of programs out on the market so that people can try them out and find out what works. Having done some programing work myself you will find that each program you make steps from the other ones you have done and you say well this works better. Then you keep looking and next time maybe you find something that works slightly better it is quite simply put evolution not creation.
Graduate of Virginia Tech with my BS in Geosciences. I will be dedicating most of my time here to refuting stupid creationist arguments but I will balance it out with a little VT football talk. This is my youtube page for anyone who might be wondering: http://www.youtube.com/user/Hochemon2008
Disclaimer: The views on this blog are mine and in no way connected to my school, employer, etc.
