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

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

<"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

<<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

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