Looking at this whole debate from a motivational perspective, one thing stands out PERFECTLY clear; There is more than just the claimed, "we only have a desire for truth and facts," driving the opposing proponents. Creationists desire to give glory to a Creator God. Therefore, creation is a must. And evolutionists, well they come in a variety of motivational packages. Some are theistic, others are not. Yet, everyone in this category genuinely embraces the findings presented by paleontologists, biologists, and diverse critical specialists as authentic evidence to the theory of evolution - although some it gets a little too technical for most laymen. And there is a distinct bias which drives the group known as atheistic evolutionist. It's just the opposite bias of the creationists. AE's don't acknowledge a Creator God, and they sure will not give glory to one (in their mind) that doesn't exist. Therefore, evolution is a must. Now I know there are many other sentiments between the two major opponents in this never ending disagreement. So much in this world doesn't always turn up black or white. But we'll set our focus on the motives of the two major opponents.
The motivation for Creationists - Giving glory to a Creator and creationism is a must
The motivation for Atheist evolutionists - Rejecting a Creator - natural methodology and
unadulterated evolution is a must.
All of this motivational bias is a veritable grid lock. But the simple truth is that facts don't care about beliefs, sentiments, or unbelief. But of course there is another twist in something as complex as origins. Sometimes the facts, i.e., what we think are facts, or appear as facts, are not always what they seem, especially when dealing with ancient elements and fossils, and a thing called 'science' that mankind is still learning to master.
At some point a universal scientific codifying or grading value code of available evidence, or what seems to be evidence, for one side or the other will need to be established. Strong evidence will rate a ten, weak evidence a one. All debates will then flow forth per the rules established by a balanced scientific standard. I realize to some extent in various doctoral defenses and university forums such rules have been set, but what is being suggested here is for a standard system that will govern all forums on the internet and elsewhere. Those who will not subscribe to the set rules need not post. Hey, we can do it for base ball or football, why not for origin sparring? I think it is something to work on, simply because people seem to get pretty upset about all of this, much more so than sports. And in the end, what is actually true will prevail. So lighten up everybody.
Mr. Nobleof VA8:41PM November 06, 2009
Your response to Kyle is one big baseless claim, and to me one big dodge. Nice touch adding quote-mines of evolutionist SJ Gould in there, who thought creationism was nonsense. Evolution incorporates both gradualism and PE into the theory.
<<If you cannot explain the difference between Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement you have not done your homework. And I believe you have.">>
And I don't know if you have or have not. If you have, you know there's little difference. If you haven't, then you've been had. For now I'll assume you've taken the DI's word at face value. All I can say is "Wedge Document" and "cdesign proponentsists."
<<"By the way, science is boorish to many of us just as apologetics bores you. However, we investigate and banter with folks such as yourself so we can wrestle with the facts and seek the truth -- wherever it may lead.You happen to echo my Mensa buddy up in Ohio happens to argue just as you do. He, too, is brilliant. And he keeps an open mind argument attitude as great intellectuals should subscribe to.">>
Well thanks for informing us of your interest in apologetics. I am open minded to evidence, but not baseless claims and faulty logic. My philosophical outlook is agnostic, however that is irrelevant in a scientific discussion.
<<"Collins attempts to have it both ways and thus loses by default to your materialsitic philosophy.">>
Collins' philosophical opinions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion. So how does one do science on the IM-material?
<<"Who wrote this? To assert methodological naturalism as a normative principle for all of science has a negative effect on the practice of certain scientific disciplines, especially the historical sciences.">>
This guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
Neither you nor he have addressed this: Can you provide a better explanation of why nested hierarchies fall into the same patterns across DNA, the fossil record and orthologous ERV's without resorting to "it's all so complex it MUST have been designed!"? What IS the scientific theory of ID? What useful scientific predictions does it make? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What exactly did it do, when did it do it and how exactly did it do whatever it is you think it did? Why is the designer limited to "micro"-evolution and how did you determine those limits? How can ID be tested? How can it be falsified?
Nick7:55PM November 06, 2009
Tough to have any fun after yesterday's terrorist attack here in Texas. A few thoughts:
Kyle: You fell back into your comfort zone by showing how evolution has all this biological evidence. Okee-dokee. I will concede that there is a veritable plethora for parts of what this topic called "evolution" has to say. But you are not advancing your argument by confessing the weaknesses (or holes) in current thinking. Darwin spent mucho time challenging his own theories and acknowledging that there was much missing. The definition of Evolution changes with each generation. Have we reached the end of that road in 2009?
The new develops in paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology have raised questions re Neo-Darwinism. It is not an attack on you all; it is seeking the same advancement of knowledge using the scientific method as 100's, nee 1000's, of theisic scientists have done and are doing. I am not one of them (thank God --oops!
An interlude: Stephen Gould wrote: The neo-Darwinism synthesis is effectively dead, despite its continued presence as textbook orthodoxy." Ouch.
Nick: If you cannot explain the difference between Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement you have not done your homework. And I believe you have. Hint: ID proponents agree on many of your points, or Dawkin's points, or Will Provine's assertions et al. also, at least some of these scientific heretics (burn them out!)have as much cache as those theistic scientists you mentioned. ID is not "religion masking as science." Those atheist ID'ers I met recently would be aghast.
By the way, science is boorish to many of us just as apologetics bores you. However, we investigate and banter with folks such as yourself so we can wrestle with the facts and seek the truth -- wherever it may lead. You happen to echo my Mensa buddy up in Ohio happens to argue just as you do. He, too, is brilliant. And he keeps an open mind argument attitude as great intellectuals should subscribe to.
Here's a good one from Collins for your apertif - Collins busts Behe's hump that irreducible complexity as a claim that "the individual subunits of the flagellum could have had no prior useful function of some other sort," then he proceeds to argue against that claim. At the very least you are clear on your philosophy of science. Collins attempts to have it both ways and thus loses by default to your materialsitic philosophy.
Who wrote this? To assert methodological naturalism as a normative principle for all of science has a negative effect on the practice of certain scientific disciplines, especially the historical sciences. All those CSI shows can no longer reach conclusions. And you archeologists stop throwing wood on that fire ( and get out of the way of those biologists. And, please do not call yourself scientists any longer. Leave the science building right away!
Scott r Nickelsof TX6:20PM November 06, 2009
<"That awkward Cambrian explosion. With no common origin except in theory">
At least there IS a theory - that works. How does ID "theory" explain why there's no rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian? Why can't the "designer" have made rabbits back then?
<"That is why we ID folks (no I am not a creationist/nor a "young earther" and am wrestling with regard to the facts and staying away from those areas that are immediately dismissed/ridiculed by naturalists.">
You're an IDer but not a creationist? The difference being? Creo's say Goddidit. IDer's say an unknown unobservable invisible undetectable "designer" didit.
<"Too many of the great scientific discoveries by the giants of science who conducted their vigorous research while holding on to their orthodox, mainline Christinity views.">
I don't see a problem. Scientists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins have done the same. But the difference between these orthodox Christians you and I mention and IDers is that they didn't let an argument from incredulity interfere with their research or conclusions. They didn't think "Ah, ferget it. It's so complex it MUST be designed!" They actually found out something useful about how the designer (if it exists) did what it did. If their faith happens to inspire them in their work, then kudos to them. But hey, you're an IDer, not a creationist, right? So what's religion got to do with anything? Are we having a scientific discussion or a theological one? I was aiming towards scientific (apologetics bores me) but then you brought up methodological naturalism. Is science supposed to be capable of dealing with the non-natural? If so, how?
<"That irreducable single cell that is the foundation of Darwinism. Science says "not really" and "not even close"; but we must adapt the existing theology of methodological naturalism to rationalize the facts even as they are radically altered. No we do no thave to but many choose to.">
I'll say it again, evolution does not rest on abiogenesis. It doesn't matter if you think Goddidit or if life arose through some natural process (which by the way, does not negate (a) God either), all evolution needs is for life to be here. Life is here. It evolves.
<"Microevolution can be inferred from macroevolution. That sounds as if it is a philosophical statement since it has been/cannot ever be proven.">
If you can provide a better explanation of why nested hierarchies fall into the same patterns across DNA, the fossil record and orthologous ERV's without resorting to "it's all so complex it MUST have been designed!" then I'd really like to hear it. What IS the scientific theory of ID? What useful scientific predictions does it make? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What exactly did it do, when did it do it and how exactly did it do whatever it is you think it did? Why is the designer limited to microevolution and how did you determine those limits? How can ID be tested? How can it be falsified?
Nick4:22PM November 06, 2009
Doc of FL (I've skipped the apologetics)
<<"Apparently you have missed the point entirely. The original assertion was that there did not exist any extra-biblical evidence about Jesus. Josephus' writings are just one of several extra-biblical writings from around that time that mention Jesus. Thus, the assertion that such writings do not exist is false.">>
Word games doc. Yeah, writings exist about Christianity which are about (gasp) Jesus Christ. So they confirm that early Christianity was around at this time. That's not the same as confirming Jesus existed. Just the same as writings about Egyptian Gods do not confirm the existence of Anubis.
<<"No, it is the truth. It is you who do not want to hear or see, for that matter. There is no scientific evidence that we evolved from lesser life forms. The only thing that has been able to be observed which is a requirement of scientific inquiry is that each animal has reproduced another after its own kind as the Bible states.">>
No, it is a lie. Not so much the Bible because the writers simply did not have the scientific understanding that we do today. But the fact is you have not once addressed any evidence posted by myself or others in regards to evolution, you've merely asserted your opinion. Denial is not a scientific rebuttal. Not that you care, because you're more interested in preaching your holy self-righteousness. Remember, God is watching. If you can provide a better explanation of why nested hierarchies fall into the same patterns across DNA, the fossil record and orthologous ERV's without resorting to "evolution is wrong because it's not in the Bible" then I'd really like to hear it. But then, we've been having trouble getting you to actually support your baseless assertions, haven't we? Yes, that is a deja-vu you're having.
Nick3:26PM November 06, 2009
If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.
Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.
The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.
What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized “missing links” now?
How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?
An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?
What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?
Kyleof HI11:48AM November 06, 2009
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?
Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?
An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.
Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?
The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.
In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.
Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.
All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face.
Kyleof HI11:44AM November 06, 2009
That awkward Cambrian explosion. With no common origin except in theory (as Pee Wee used to say "Connect the dots...la la la la") There is no scientific evidence that we evolved from lesser life forms. The only thing that has been able to be observed which is a requirement of scientific inquiry is that each animal has reproduced another after its own kind.
That is why we ID folks (no I am not a creationist/nor a "young earther" and am wrestling with regard to the facts and staying away from those areas that are immediately dismissed/ridiculed by naturalists. Too many of the great scientific discoveries by the giants of science who conducted their vigorous research while holding on to their orthodox, mainline Christinity views. If they were simply ignorant as a product of their times than we can extend that same courtesy to Charles Darwin and his interesting theories.
That irreducable single cell that is the foundation of Darwinism. Science says "not really" and "not even close"; but we must adapt the existing theology of methodological naturalism to rationalize the facts even as they are radically altered. No we do no thave to but many choose to.
Microevolution can be inferred from macroevolution. That sounds as if it is a philosophical statement since it has been/cannot ever be proven. Leap of Faith for scientists. Let's call it that instead of "settled science."
Guillermo Gonzalez..must be a crank scientist. Discuss.
Kyle from HI
Great quotes. They do not add up to anything except believers can have a self-critical eye towrds their religion. By the way, Franklin compiled comments and didn't necessarily subscribe to ever wise ole saying. C'mon. You are better than that. Here's a challenge: are you open to those same Foounding Fathers on their pro-faith offerings? Are you open to treating them as a body of work? I set off to disabuse my fiance (now wifey) of her born-again comments and went to the Bible to attack and refute it. Also spent a little bit of time with that former agnostic turned believer C.S. Lewis. I had my own road to Damascus change that left my family wondering, as my older brother said to me " I thought you were smarter than that!" Exactly the way I used to taunt those weak-kneed church types.
Scott R Nickelsof TX10:57AM November 06, 2009
"Supernatural doesn't equal magic, huh?"
No, it does not. Supernatural means superior or above or outside of the natural world. Magic is tricks or illusions. You can look up the definition to both. But that would require you actually picking up a book and doing some research.
"Closest I've read to scientific articles about evidence of an afterlife would be Mario Beauregard."
You need to read more then.
"Exactly the point I brought up previously. Therefore, Josephus's writings are not evidence that Jesus existed. Although you were previously keen to bring him up in days past to try and support your assertion."
Apparently you have missed the point entirely. The original assertion was that there did not exist any extra-biblical evidence about Jesus. Josephus' writings are just one of several extra-biblical writings from around that time that mention Jesus. Thus, the assertion that such writings do not exist is false.
"That is a blatant lie, Doc. You've simply denied stuff you don't like to hear...Remember God is watching...."
Yes, I know. He is watching you too. And He has watched you since your birth. He has seen every time you have lied, stolen, lusted, blasphemed His Holy name, disobeyed your parents, coveted, failed to help others. And you will have to give an account of every sin you have ever committed to Him once you die and you don't know when you are going to die. It may be tonight. If you are found guilty of your sins against God you will spend eternity in Hell. I wouldn't want that even for my worst enemy. But God, bring rich in love and mercy, provided a way for your sins to be forgiven paying the price for your sins on your behalf so that you may receive eternal life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Your call.
DOCof FL10:46AM November 06, 2009
"Ever heard of the four corners?"
Yes, of which a circle or something that is round has none of.
"They could have said "sphere" but they used "circle"
They could have used square, or tablet, or plate but they used circle.
"This is why you can't claim the Bible is literally true but then offer your own interpretation (from an English version no less)."
I am not offering "my own interpretation" but expousing good biblical hermaeutics from the original language of which you apparently have no understanding of. Can I assume you have read the scriptures in their original language? I highly doubt it. Yet you somehow claim to understand them perfectly? That is presumptuous.
"What you are doing is rationalisation and apologetics. Sorry, still not interested."
Of course not. Why would you be interested in the truth?If my argument "falls flat" your argument never got off the ground.
"Our relationship with God is between us and God. You need not interfere."
I am not interfering with any relationship because you do not know God.
"You're not His favourite dude."
Maybe, but you are not His "dude" at all.
"If said entity exists, I happen to think that it is NOT stupid, so therefore I have NO worries at all about disagreeing with you or any other creationist, even when they start "warning" (threatening) us."
Your problem is not with me or any "creationist". Your problem is with God Himself. And it is not a "threat" but you have God's promise that it will be so. And God always keeps His promise.
"That is a blatant lie, Doc. You've simply denied stuff you don't like to hear."
No, it is the truth. It is you who do not want to hear or see, for that matter. There is no scientific evidence that we evolved from lesser life forms. The only thing that has been able to be observed which is a requirement of scientific inquiry is that each animal has reproduced another after its own kind as the Bible states.
"Remember, God is watching."
Yes, I know. He is watching you too. And He has watched you since your birth. He has seen every time you have lied, stolen, lusted, blasphemed His Holy name, disobeyed your parents, coveted, failed to help others. And you will have to give an account of every sin you have ever committed to Him once you die and you don't know when you are going to die. It may be tonight. If you are found guilty of your sins against God you will spend eternity in Hell. I wouldn't want that even for my worst enemy. But God, bring rich in love and mercy, provided a way for your sins to be forgiven paying the price for your sins on your behalf so that you may receive eternal life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Your call.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Mr. Noble of VA 8:41PM November 06, 2009
Nick 7:55PM November 06, 2009
Scott r Nickels of TX 6:20PM November 06, 2009
Nick 4:22PM November 06, 2009
Nick 3:26PM November 06, 2009
Kyle of HI 11:48AM November 06, 2009
Kyle of HI 11:44AM November 06, 2009
Scott R Nickels of TX 10:57AM November 06, 2009
DOC of FL 10:46AM November 06, 2009
DOC of FL 10:27AM November 06, 2009