Scientist Genie Scott's Last Word to Creationist Ray Comfort: There You Go Again

Reader Comments

Back to blog

Physical similarities alone do not make a species transitional.

There are numerous physical similarities between species today. Doesn't mean one evolved from the other.

I've posed the following challenge to evolutionists and have yet to receive a response:

In pictures, please post the entire lineage of creatures that led up to human beings on the evolutionary chart starting with the first sea creatures and ending with human beings. Please include all transitional forms as well.

Speculation is not science.

Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.

You've heard of a frog becoming a prince?

The evolutionist believes with enough time, this is possible.

mark of CA 1:05AM November 26, 2009

"All of those lengthy explanations, diagrams, charts, color slides, etc. ("paper science") produced by evolutionists to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction MUST be blindly accepted."

The last thing *any* scientist demands is "blind acceptance". Scientists *encourage* criticism of their work. It is by debate over the interpretation of evidence that science advances. However, ignorant and dishonest attacks on the funadmental assumptions of science are treated with the distain they deserve.

"Asking for proof such as ANY form of lab demonstration, transitional fossils in various stages of changing from asexual to sexual reproduction, or ANY other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, etc. will only be met with more of #4 above."

Firstly, science does not offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed and measured.

Secondly, there are literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers describing laboratory experiments in evolutionary biology. If you have a better explanation for the evidence feel free to offfer it.

Thirdly, you have been given examples of transitional fossils on this board, but have both ignored them and failed to give any reason why they are *not* transitional fossils. If you think that denying the evidence adds weight to your argument, let me disabuse you of that ridiculous notion. All you succeed in doing is to make yourself look dishonest.

The evidence is there whether you ignore it or not.

Richard Forrest 4:31AM November 24, 2009

Oh dear! Another demonstration of dogmatic ignorance from a creationist.

*ALL* scientists in *ALL* fields of *EVERY* science "only have theories". However, a scientific theory is *not* just empty speculation, but a robust model of how a system works developed by gathering evidence, formulating and testing hypotheses, and revising or rejecting the theoretical model acccording to the evidence. Evolutionary theory is one of the most robust and exhaustively tested theories in any branch of any science.

*ALL* scientific theories are held to be provisional and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands.

"HOW asexual turned into sexual reproduction DEFINITELY happened. They can only tell you what they "think MAY have" happened."

If you have a better explanation of how this happened that the hypotheses formulated by science, feel free to offer it. Unless you can, why should we reject the conclusions of those who have actually *studied* the subject?

"And this, of course, is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT on their a-priori ASSUMPTION that it DEFINITELY DID HAPPEN in a completely naturalistic and atheistic fashion."

*ALL* science is premiated on the assumption of naturalism. This is not the same as atheism. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists, believe in God. However, that belief is not involved in the conclusions they form from their research.

" Entertaining ANY fleeting thought that their ASSUMPTION (that sexual reproduction came about by naturalistic means) might be wrong - well, that simply is NOT TOLERATED."

Science can only investigate phenomena which can be observed and measured. If you want to reject science, that's fine. However, to reject the assumption of naturalism which is fundamental to science and claim scientific support for the supernatural is either ignorant or dishonest.

"By NOT TOLERATED meaning automatic insults, name-calling, and other condescending forms of treatment."

Has it ever occurred to you to learn something about science? Or to look critically at the claims made by creationists?

I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any honest creationist argument. I have concluded that creationism is deeply and fundamentally dishonest. As an evolutionary biologist, I find it infuriating to have my field of science attacked by misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods - as is evidenced by your post.

What do you think an appropriate response to an attack by falsehoods?

Richard Forrest 4:30AM November 24, 2009

<"The snowflake is a result of the laws of chemistry and physics—crystals form because they have to. DNA by the laws of chemistry and physics can’t self assemble from amino acids on its own-they don’t have to--and they won’t. DNA or any living thing has high complexity and won’t self assemble even with all the right parts present--a snowflake is simply H2O lining up due to chemical interactions that have to happen—water always turns to ice under a certain temperature and conditions.">

You're repeating your baseless assertion that DNA can't develop via natural processes. And what's more, you're dismissing the complexity inherent in snow flake crystals. You still avoid telling us how "complexity" is quantified so that we can measure both and determine that life is indeed designed and snow flakes are not.

What's more, if the "designer" also happens to be responsible for the "creation" of the universe, I understand how one would have some difficulty in determining a "designed" object from a "non-designed" one, since there would be nothing to base a comparison on.

This is why ACTUAL designs stick out in a natural environment. Bird's nests. Beaver-dams. Computers. Watches.

These do not arrive via natural non-intelligent processes. Life does. Whether or not an intelligence was ultimately responsible (or not) for abiogenesis, remains to be seen.

.

Nothing you've put forward is a problem for evolution. Your main beef seems to be with abiogenesis, which you try to say is impossible with nothing but baseless claims. In the meantime, we're still waiting on the "theory" of IDC.

What IS the "theory"? WHO or WHAT is the designer and how can we tell? By what MECHANISM did it do whatever it is you think it did, WHERE can we observe this process, and WHEN did it do it? WHAT useful scientific predictions does it make? HOW can it be tested? HOW can it be falsified?

So far all that Intelligent Design Creationism can tell us is: that SOMETHING did it. SOMEHOW. SOMEWHERE. At SOMETIME.

I can't imagine for the life of me why no-one would be impressed with this incredibly amazing "scientific theory". Let's teach it in schools!

Nick 12:25AM November 20, 2009

<"Creationists look at the complexity of life including DNA and state, scientifically, this could not have arose on it’s own—breaks the rules of chemistry and physics.">

Really? And where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers that support this? (not that it matters to evolution)

<"DNA does not self assemble from amino acids in any scenario of early earth atmosphere or concocted solutions. Where in the lab have they produced a cell from scratch?">

This is being researched. They've managed to get RNA which they think is the precursor to DNA. Time will tell. Until then, your categorically firm statement has no basis.

<"By the way, all the amino acids need to be “left handed” which does not occur in nature—you’ll get right and left handed amino acids.">

You keep making these categorical statements, like "the odds show X to be impossible", "DNA can't arrive via natural process", and now "no left handed amino acids". The Miller-Urey experiment produced both.

<"Concerning DNA as information--the study of language/information dictates that symbolism cannot arise without intelligence—its antithetical to logic. The DNA code is a “language” if you will, with letters (base pairs) that when strung together are code for actual proteins. This, to creationists, is clear evidence of design along with irreducible complexity.">

The clue is in the word you used: symbolism. The "code" is an analogy. Put two chemicals together, they'll do nothing. Put another two together, they react violently. Put another two together, they start to replicate. Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an anti-evolution argument, it provides no evidence of ID. It is mere argument from incredulity. What's more, no research has been done to support it - and Behe doesn't wanna do it.

<"As for the designer—the designer won’t be a part of the design and the evidence for the designer will only be the work left behind. I know that is unsatisfying to pure naturalists like yourself, but it is logical and reasonable.">

You have strange definitions of "logic" and "reason". You take any example of design you can think of, we can point to a designer. A bird's nest. A beaver-dam. A human computer. The mechanisms are observed. The designers are observed. Their methods determinable. ID? Says SOME THING did it. SOMEhow. SOMEwhere. At SOMEtime.

Thats a real fantastic "theory" you got there.

(continued)

Nick 12:09AM November 20, 2009

<"Detrimental mutations vastly outnumber positive mutations. You need to count on extraordinary odds to rack up only the positive mutations you need and never get a detrimental mutation as well as the positives you gain don’t re-mutate back to the original. The odds can become astronomical to the point where statisticians consider it impossible.">

False. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that organisms with positive mutations will have a reproductive advantage over those with negative ones. We agree that detrimental mutations do not re-mutate back to a former state. However, none of this rules out the possibility of future positive mutations making up for detrimental ones. That of course depends on the survivability of the species with the detrimental mutation.

<"But again, to gain those compounding beneficial mutations to drive positive change is mathematically daunting.">

Not when weighed against natural selection, which you still fail to account for. Those with beneficial mutations and their reproductive advantage will pass on their genes to the next generation, until they eventually out-reproduce those with detrimental mutations.

<"Of course not. Your definition of new appears to be that of someone who gets a used car and calls it my new car. It’s already been made—it’s not new as in a new model with extra advantageous features.">

No, if you want to go with that analogy, I was pointing out that you can add another two wheels to a bike and make it a car. Or more wheels to a car until you have a tank.

<"We are talking about macro evolution—you need new, fully functional, integrated (the brain has to be ready and wired for the new organ as well) information that gives you new (original) functions. Borrowing from another organism (cells) doesn’t count, it still won’t answer the question of how it arrived.">

New traits arrive via mutation.

<"I tried the link one of your comrades gave and couldn’t find reference to this. Be careful how you define new.">

Ok.

<"Natural selection drives adaptation through selecting from the species best phenotypes--that is all that has been proven.">

And adaptations can accumulate.

<"You’d better be able to show your work in chemistry and physics (hard sciences) or your theory is pseudo-science and you end up simply with creative charts, drawings and just so stories of how it might have happened. Which is fine, hypothesis’ are good, but don’t call it fact or near fact as many postings have stated."

Chemistry and physics? Not biology? If you want to see work supporting evolution, simply search PubMed.

<"No one was here in the beginning so neither side can empirically prove how it all got started but we can look at the evidence and decide how we might provide an explanation.">

I repeat: evolution does not rest on abiogenesis.

(continued)

Nick 12:07AM November 20, 2009

<<Creationists look at the complexity of life including DNA and state, scientifically, this could not have arose on it’s own breaks the rules of chemistry and physics.>>

No, they don't.

They *assert* that it could not have arisen on its own. They offer no alternative, testable hypothesis of *how* it could have arisen, and demand that we should abandon the principle of naturalism which underlies *ALL* science be abandoned and that their "explanation" - i.e. "God did it" - is accepted. They offer spurious arguments, based on straw man versions of evolutionary theory and theories of abiogenesis, and publish them only in creationist "journals" which have neither academic or scientific credibility. They don't try to have them published in mainstream academic journals because they know that their arguments are spurious, and that the editors of any journal with even minmal critical insight will recognise them as spurious. Bearing in mind that some at least of the authors of the nonsense peddled in creationist sources are scientists familiar with the processes and disciplines of scientific publication, I find it hard to escape the conclusion that they write their articles knowing that they have no academic or scientific value, but relying on the lack of scientific education and critical thinking of creationists to give them a false patina of authority. There are instances in some of the articles in which it seem inescapable that the authors are writing things they must know to be false with the intent to decieve. I call this lying.

This is *NOT* a debate between science and religion. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists, find no conflict between their faith and accepting the findings of science. The official position of most mainstream Christian churches is that there is no conflict between their faith and accepting the findings of science. It is *CREATIONSTS* who claim that this is a scientific issue, not scientists, and the fact that creationists are unable to promote honest arguments for the scientific validity of their dogma undermines not only their scientific credentials, but their claims to be the only "True Christians".

When it comes down to basics, this is an issue of honesty. I oppose creationism because I detest dishonesty, especially when it comes from those claiming the moral high ground as creationists do.

Richard Forrest 10:07AM November 19, 2009

LOLOLOLOLOL Ignorant creationists are teh funnies.

asdfsadf of DC 8:03PM November 18, 2009

The second half of your argument is basically an argument from incredulity. Every time a creationist says that we can't do something, we eventually do it; we're closer than ever to seeing a self-assembling nucleotide. The problem is that there is no model to base it on: no new life is arising, and all subsequent organisms have endured billions of years of evolution, erasing much of their link to the first living things. There can be only conjecture at this point. It won't self-assemble right now because it's complex and requires specific conditions that we just don't understand yet. They're quite like any complex chemical reaction. Sure, all it requires is a set of reactions, but you wouldn't say that our ability to understand it has anything to do with whether it can occur. It's quite a bit more complex than a snowflake.

The information argument is nonsense. Things arise if they can. Otherwise there isn't any actual reason - even you didn't give a single one - and no positive test. The only real argument is that there must be a product of intelligence if and when it cannot arise naturally, but that's a negative argument. All ID arguments in this regard are arguments against the natural process. The genetic code is too complex to be the product of blind forces. It's too specified. But these arguments have largely failed.

Jacob of MI 2:18PM November 17, 2009

Jef, I addressed the idea of mutations in one of my earlier posts:

"Actually, many biologists have this thing called neutral theory and believe that neutral mutations are the prime driver of evolution. Just about all biologists believe that neutral mutations are important to the process. It's true that beneficial mutations are the driver of adaptations and natural selection because they confer survival advantages, but they work together with neutral mutations."

I suppose that if you're only looking for positive mutations, then the odds would decrease. But neutral mutations are a vital part of evolution. I believe that scientists found that, by comparing generations, over a hundred mutation may happen in an individual per generation. Much of this is pure fuel for evolution. In fact, most individual changes, even if it may change an amino acid, are typically negligible to the function of the protein. Neutral mutations accumulate rapidly, and though they may have a small percentage of a chance to become fixed in a population, there are many of them. Since evolution is merely change, and everything is in the process of changing, then evolution occurs. Proteins begin to change. New functions or phenotypes arise. Species eventually differentiate.

What amazes me is that someone can think that so many biologists, some of the smartest individuals in the world, can just totally flout the odds, if the argument was truly that obvious. No, these biologists will tell you that the odds as we understand them work in their favor, and anyone who says that evolution is statistically impossible doesn't understand evolution: anyone can introduce the wrong variables and get bad numbers. There is still a lot that is up for debate (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift vs. adaptation), but if evolution is that unlikely to occur, then provide math (or at least provide proof that those doing this math are correct).

Furthermore, most of what we're calling so-called "new information" is simple changes to base pairs that might eventually alter a protein's function, thus allowing it to do something that it did not do before. This is both theoretically possible and has been documented frequently, such as with Lenski's bacteria experiment (you can easily Google just those three words and find it). Duplication CAN lead to novel changes, such as when a digestive protein in a fish duplicated and led to an antifreeze protein. Duplications of entire organs isn't really all that useful since the basic body plan of two eyes, a head, four limbs, and a tail (which is a vestigal trait in humans) has been set in place for hundreds of millions of years amongst land animals, but when they do arise, it's interesting to note that they are already integrated: the organism has full use of the mutated part. This isn't like wiring a house when you include a new room. The organism is composed in such a way that new, integrated units can easily be used for evolutionary change.

Jacob of MI 2:11PM November 17, 2009

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to blog

God & Country

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

advertisement