Metro State Atheists

Promoting Science, Reason, and Secular Values

Creation Museum to Open Natural Selection Exhibit

 

This is straight from Answers in Genesis

 

Where Darwin Got It Right

While creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis strongly disagree with Charles Darwin’s ideas about all of life evolving from a single organism (macro-evolution), his theory of natural selection actually meets with more widespread acceptance as it relates to how species adapt and change over time—but, as we observe in nature, only within their own kind. Such changes, however, and as we point out frequently on this website, are not evolution in the “molecules-to-man” sense. The Creation Museum here in our Cincinnati area (in northern Kentucky) will open a new exhibit this Sunday, March 15, to help explain what natural selection can and cannot do, and how this is supported biblically and scientifically. “Evolutionists use natural selection as evidence for evolution, believing that given enough time (millions of years), natural selection could account for the larger changes required for molecules-to-man evolution,” museum founder and president Ken Ham explains. “Our new exhibit will clear up the differences between natural selection and what would be required for evolution to occur in the molecules-to-man sense—for example, reptiles to birds—as one kind of animal turns into a totally different kind.” The exhibit, entitled “Natural Selection is Not Evolution,” includes an aquarium that resembles a real cave. This cave aquarium will feature live blind cavefish, showing how natural selection allows organisms to possess characteristics most favorable for a given environment—but again, it is not an example of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. There is also a series of wall displays with professionally produced models that examine, among other things, antibiotic-resistant bacteria (which are commonly cited as an example of “evolution in action”). Instead, the Creation Museum exhibit will point out how antibiotic resistance in bacteria points away from macro-evolution, rather than toward it. The new display also contrasts evolution’s “tree of life,” showing that all organisms have descended from one single-celled creature, with the “Creation Orchard,” which illustrates the family tree of each original kind of created plant or animal life of Genesis chapter 1. A display entitled “Three Blind Mice” will show the devastating effects of mutation and how natural selection works to preserve animal kinds. A dog skull display will demonstrate how natural and artificial selection has led to variation within the dog kind. The exhibit will also include a mounted display of Darwin’s finches based on Darwin’s own studies and observations from the Galápagos Islands. The new exhibit is located near the museum’s popular presentation regarding the geologic evidence for a global Flood. Its proximity to the Flood geology room in the museum was deliberate, as this exhibit also lays the groundwork to understand how Noah could fit representatives of all the animal kinds (not species) on the Ark. “I think one of the reasons evolutionists give creationists such a hard time is that they don’t think we believe in good science, which we absolutely do. In fact, we have several full-time staff with earned doctorates. I’ve read and heard many news reports and columns stating that creationists don’t believe in natural selection, and that is simply not true,” Ham said. “Our new exhibit will help to explain these valid theories and show that we agree with the proven science of these processes. Most people don’t realize that speciation is not evolution—it has nothing to do with changing one kind of animal (e.g., fish) into a totally different kind of animal (e.g., amphibian).” Ham continued: “Our area of disagreement with the evolutionists comes when they start using bad science to state that natural selection could eventually lead from one plant or animal kind changing into another, finally making the leap to humanity.” Not only is this in direct contradiction with the Bible, which states that God created all the various kinds of plant and animal life, including humans, but it also has no scientific validity. “Many Christians are surprised when they learn that valid observational science confirms the biblical accounts of creation and Noah’s Flood,” Ham added. “Our mission at Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum is to spread that message

in order to uphold all of Scripture and therefore reach non-believers with the gospel, which is based in this history in Genesis.” The exhibit opens as the secular science world has been celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday this year, plus the 150th anniversary of the publication of his famous book On the Origin of Species. Go to http://www.CreationMuseum.org for more information on the exhibit, and then plan to visit this new, fascinating addition to our Bible-affirming center.

About these ads

March 18, 2009 - Posted by | atheism, Bible, Christianity, creationism, evolution, god, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus is Lord, Metro State Atheists, New Testament, News, Old Testament, religion, science | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Comments »

  1. Creationists do not believe that Darwin got everything wrong. “Natural Selection” is actually part of the Creation model, albeit in a somewhat different understanding if the term.

    Contrary to popular belief, we agree with evolutionary biologists that speciation occures, and that therefore change with time occures.

    If an evolutionary Scientist and a Creation scientist were to have a beer together and talk science, I garanytee you that, with the exception of how “natural selection” and speciation work, the two of them would find that they agree more than they disagree.

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 19, 2009

  2. Also, Answers in Genesis is okay for the creationist arguments, but I think Harun Yahya presents the case much better than Ken Ham.

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 19, 2009

  3. Creationism has be told me more times than I can count and no matter how many times you spin it. It’s not scientific, it lack proof, it’s been falsified (see the Dover trial) and proponents tend to use a misunderstanding of Evolution as counterexamples of evolution which is just intellectually bankrupt and an epic fail.

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 19, 2009

  4. The Dover Trial is was not over Creationism. — It was over Intelligent Design. And, please do not confuse Creationism with ID.

    Besides, the Dover trial is becoming more and more irrelevant.

    I say that it is becoming irrelevant becase since then, some of Michael Behe’s predictions have actaly come true.

    For example, Behe predicted that so-called “Junk DNA” would be discovered to not be junk at all and that it therefore would be functional.
    . — Ken Miller, on the other hand, at the trial kept on insisting that “Junk DNA” was no more than scribbles and was therefore functionless.

    Well, guess whose prediction trned out to be correct. — I’ll give you a hint: It was not Ken Miller’s.

    Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104180928.htm

    Well, “Junk D

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 19, 2009

  5. Apparently, you know nothing of the Dover trial. In the evidence they showed that just because it’s called something different, doesn’t mean it is. The trial provided evidence that in the original draft of “Of Pandas and People” the words “creator” and “creationism” were used in the definitions, whereas in the final copy the ONLY change made in these definitions was “intelligent designer” and “intelligent design”. In fact, they found copy & paste errors where the words intelligent design were found inside of creationism. This is what the prosecution used to show that they were equivalent and thus it was unconstitutional to teach or to recommend it by rule of a previous case.

    There does exist junk DNA by quote-mining friend. Behe is not at all a creditable scientist, as the trial again showed as he ignores evidence and work to promote this idea rather than checking it against counter-evidence and peer review. In his book he claim that there was “no research or scientific explanation” for a specific biological structure. The prosecution provided Behe with multiple journal articles and about 8 books on the specific structure in question. I’m not claiming he had to read all that material, he just had to know it existed and he didn’t. If he did, and ignored it, then he’s a liar and not a scientist.

    In the trail exactly what Mr. Behe said would be necessary to disprove his theory was provided in the trail. The flagella was the example. If you take away the proteins necessary for the “motor” the flagella is still useful as a stinger. Thus, it was shown that the one of the main tenets of I.D., namely that structures are so complex that if you were to remove a part of them they cease to be useful, is falsified. Yet the man still thinks he’s right, that’s dogma, not science.

    Joel

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 19, 2009

  6. You said:

    “Apparently, you know nothing of the Dover trial. In the evidence they showed that just because it’s called something different, doesn’t mean it is. The trial provided evidence that in the original draft of “Of Pandas and People” the words “creator” and “creationism” were used in the definitions, whereas in the final copy the ONLY change made in these definitions was “intelligent designer” and “intelligent design”.”

    Creationism begins with the Bible and triest to fit the scieniic data.

    Intelligent Design does not regognize the Biblical god. Some ID proponents believe that “Aliens did it.” Many also believe the universe and planet is billions of years old.

    Micheal Behe believes in common descent for crying out loud. He says so in his book. Does this sound like creationism to you? — I didn’t think so.

    Some ID proponents accept Common ancestory, and some do not.

    “In fact, they found copy & paste errors where the words intelligent design were found inside of creationism. This is what the prosecution used to show that they were equivalent and thus it was unconstitutional to teach or to recommend it by rule of a previous case.”

    That can be easily be explained by the fact that there are creationists that accept ID. But not all IDers are creationists.

    “There does exist junk DNA by quote-mining friend. Behe is not at all a creditable scientist, as the trial again showed as he ignores evidence and work to promote this idea rather than checking it against counter-evidence and peer review.”

    And apparently you are ignoring evidence to te contrary.

    Your statement proves you did not check my link. If you are going to accuse me of quote mining, then show where misrepresented what my source says.

    It shows that “Junk” DNA has been found to be functional. That means it is not junk.

    As a matter of fact, the title of the science article is “‘Junk’ DNA Proves Functional; Helps Explain Human Differences From Other Species.”

    If you are going to accuse me of quote mining, then I defy you to show me where I misrepresented what my source says. — If you cannot, then you owe me an aplogy!

    “In the trail exactly what Mr. Behe said would be necessary to disprove his theory was provided in the trail. The flagella was the example. If you take away the proteins necessary for the “motor” the flagella is still useful as a stinger.”

    Kennith Miller’s argument, right? — ID does not say that the flagellum doesn’t have other uses if you take away a cerain component. That is a straw man argument. — The real argument is that the organ will not function equally without all the components, not that there aren’t other functions.

    Also, that gives no mechenism as to how the motor could have evolved.

    “Yet the man still thinks he’s right, that’s dogma, not science.”

    Since his arguments have been misrepresented at Dover, and still are being by Ken Miller, of course he’ll still think he is right.

    Ken Miller argued that Irreducible Complexity means that components of an organ have no function by themselves unless ALL the components are present. — Nope, that’s not what it means. It’s a straw man. ID does not say that.

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 19, 2009

  7. “Creationism begins with the Bible and triest to fit the scieniic data.
    Intelligent Design does not regognize the Biblical god. Some ID proponents believe that “Aliens did it.” Many also believe the universe and planet is billions of years old.
    Micheal Behe believes in common descent for crying out loud. He says so in his book. Does this sound like creationism to you? — I didn’t think so.
    Some ID proponents accept Common ancestory, and some do not.”

    Please give me an example of a single, outspoken I.D. proponent that doesn’t believe in the biblical god. Thank you.

    Michael Behe again, not a great source. I fail to see why you think so. If one accepts common decent, what’s the point in an “intelligent creator”? Common decent means we evolved, without interference, from “lower” lifeforms.

    Further, if they are so different why didn’t those writing “Of Pandas and People” make it clear rather than inserting I.D. as a euphemism, which is what it really is, no matter how you spin it.

    “That can be easily be explained by the fact that there are creationists that accept ID. But not all IDers are creationists.”

    That didn’t explain the problem at hand with what you quoted. Try again.

    “And apparently you are ignoring evidence to te contrary.
    Your statement proves you did not check my link. If you are going to accuse me of quote mining, then show where misrepresented what my source says.
    It shows that “Junk” DNA has been found to be functional. That means it is not junk.”

    Not all junk DNA is functional. This is exactly what I mean by quote mining and an indifference to quantitative qualifiers. You are claiming “for all” junk DNA. We know we are related to plants because we share DNA with them, yet to my knowledge, it hasn’t been shown that the plant DNA in our DNA is at all functional. Furthermore, you “linking” to source isn’t good enough. It’s not up to me to dig through you’re sources, it’s up to you to copy and paste the relevant information without bias into your posts.

    “Kennith Miller’s argument, right? — ID does not say that the flagellum doesn’t have other uses if you take away a cerain component. That is a straw man argument. — The real argument is that the organ will not function equally without all the components, not that there aren’t other functions.
    Also, that gives no mechenism as to how the motor could have evolved.”

    I.D. is defined by “Of Pandas and People” as the the idea that all animals were created as we see them today, birds with wings etc. Furthermore, it was your pal Michael Behe who has made the claim that parts wouldn’t be functional if missing subparts. Thus, he has been proven wrong again and all the wiggling won’t get him or you out of this once.

    “Since his arguments have been misrepresented at Dover, and still are being by Ken Miller, of course he’ll still think he is right.”

    I’m taking my understanding of Behe’s arguments from Behe…not Miller. Here you go my man…here is a quote taken from http://www.takingorigins.org which quotes Micheal Behe’s own book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”

    “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)”

    You’ll notice in the first sentence that he defines irreducible complexity exactly as I said he has and how it was presented at Dover. You’re just mad because he’s dead wrong and want to redefine things when it is convenient for you.

    Have a nice day.

    Joel

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 20, 2009

  8. Just to clear some things up.

    You said:

    “Not all junk DNA is functional. This is exactly what I mean by quote mining and an indifference to quantitative qualifiers. You are claiming “for all” junk DNA. We know we are related to plants because we share DNA with them, yet to my knowledge, it hasn’t been shown that the plant DNA in our DNA is at all functional. Furthermore, you “linking” to source isn’t good enough. It’s not up to me to dig through you’re sources, it’s up to you to copy and paste the relevant information without bias into your posts.”

    Okay. I got your point. But, why is any still classified as “functionless junk?” Because we still do not know of any function. Such logic is not good enough to say that there is none at all. Just because we do not know of a function yet , that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. Afterall, the tonsils were once thought to have no function, but now we know that it contributes to our immune systems. — Also, even though the ERV was thought to have no function, now it is starting to show signs of function. Just because we do not know of a function doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

    “I’m taking my understanding of Behe’s arguments from Behe…not Miller. Here you go my man…here is a quote taken from http://www.takingorigins.org which quotes Micheal Behe’s own book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”

    Did you bother to read the book yourself, or did you just take Talk.Origins at its word? — He himself says in the book that the components have other uses.

    Behe himself freely admitts what you are saying because it is NOT what he is arguing.

    His own words:


    The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system.

    Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.

    In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller’s reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it–it doesn’t explain it at all.

    Here’s the link: http://www.discovery.org/a/1831

    He does not argue that other components do not have other functions if the flagellum were to be dismembered. Quite the contrary, he says the oposite. He doesn’t deny what you are saying at all.

    I know that the common understanding of IC is that if one were to take a single component from an organ, then the organ would not function at all. — This understanding is not strictly absolute, though in some cases it is completely accurate. As you said before, the flagellum could have other uses if, let’s say, the propeller were to be removed. However, it becomes less capable of fulfilling its purpose, not to mention we wold have a motor without a propeller. As a result it would remain stuck in one place, and the motor would be, arguably, selected out by natural selection.

    Irredcible complexity, more accurately, depends on whether the organ can actally fulfill the porpose for it’s existence rather than whether or not other parts of the dismembered organ can be used for other functions. Sometimes both cases apply, but not always.

    Let me explain it this way. I’m sure that you know of the “Mouse trap” illustration, am I correct?

    As Ken Miller once said, if we were to take apart the mouse trap, we could use the pieces for other purposes. — That is true. He said we could use the piece of wood to hold down papers. — Okay. But what use is a simple piece of wood for catching mice? It’s not. It would not be able to serve that purpose. Likewise, there is no indication that the flagellum could serve its current porpose if we were to take parts from it, though I do not deny that it could serve others.

    “You’ll notice in the first sentence that he defines irreducible complexity exactly as I said he has and how it was presented at Dover. You’re just mad because he’s dead wrong and want to redefine things when it is convenient for you.”

    Let me highlight a certain part of the quote: — It says “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

    Let me re-emphesize, he says “contribute to the basic function,” — The wording clearly says he is talking about the basic function and that a removal of an organ would hinder the basic function. He NEVER says there aren’t other functions.

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 21, 2009

  9. Hello krissmith, this is Chalmer. If you don’t mind me putting my background in biology to use, I have a few comments.

    “For example, Behe predicted that so-called “Junk DNA” would be discovered to not be junk at all and that it therefore would be functional.
    . — Ken Miller, on the other hand, at the trial kept on insisting that “Junk DNA” was no more than scribbles and was therefore functionless.”

    This prediction is totally consistent with evolution. Replicating DNA is energetically expensive. If these regions served no other purpose than to drain energy from the organism they should not survive the process of natural selection unless, of course, they are parasitic in nature. That these satellite sequences serve some role in regulating gene expression has been suspected for some time now. These sequences do not code for protein of any kind, clearly, which is probably what he meant. TO claim they have no function, either beneficial to themselves or us as organisms, is a mistake I would expect to see on a high school biology exam. Ultimately, there still is junk DNA, as the term refers to those sections of the genome for which there is no known function. While the article you provided establishes that the sequences in question play a regulatory role, many thousands (or hundreds…i don’t know…lots) of satellite sequences still exist for which no function has been. This is a mistake in the conclusion made by the columnist in my opinion. I think its a hasty generalization. Some sequences might be parasitic, while others may serves as place holders. Highly repetitious teleomeric sequences serve no regulatory role, for example, but actually protect the loss of genetic content at the ends of chromosomes. Many of the microsatellite sequences we use for DNA fingerprinting have no established function. As well, the highly variable nature of some of these regions make it unlikely they all serve a regulatory role. Their lack of function is the very thing which makes them useful for discerning individuals in a DNA fingerprint.

    “It shows that “Junk” DNA has been found to be functional. That means it is not junk.”

    It does not. It shows that some junk DNA has been found functional. I blame this one on sensationalistic journalism. If you actually read the original publication you’ll find that the truth of the matter is far less sensational. Always be suspicious of absolutes.

    “The real argument is that the organ will not function equally without all the components, not that there aren’t other functions.”

    No organ, if robbed of one of its functional units, will function equally. This isn’t ID, its common sense. This isn’t and argument against or for evolution, its just an observation. The ID argument is that life is too complicated to have uninspired or unintelligent origins. The above observation is often cited as evidence for this insane conclusion. Evolution accounts for the development of obligatory symbiosis at the molecular, cellular, organ, and organ system level. Any voluntary symbiotic relationship has the potential to become obligatory by the degradation of unused potential and the specialization of frequent activities. ID rests entirely on the assumption at complex systems cannot independently develop by natural means but, instead, require some kind of intelligent origin. This is clearly not the case. While ID may be true, it is certainly not necessarily so, and probably not so. Based on your presentation of ID, the only prediction that have come true are those already expected and predicted by evolutionary theory. How exactly do you distinguish ID from evolution?

    “Okay. I got your point. But, why is any still classified as “functionless junk?” Because we still do not know of any function. Such logic is not good enough to say that there is none at all. Just because we do not know of a function yet , that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. Afterall, the tonsils were once thought to have no function, but now we know that it contributes to our immune systems. — Also, even though the ERV was thought to have no function, now it is starting to show signs of function. Just because we do not know of a function doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.”

    It is possible that some no longer serve a function, and that we are observing them in a state of decay. As you say, though, we can not assume they are all non-functional. You, however, are being unreasonable in assuming they are all functional, or at least that they are all serving the same function.

    “However, it becomes less capable of fulfilling its purpose, not to mention we wold have a motor without a propeller. As a result it would remain stuck in one place, and the motor would be, arguably, selected out by natural selection.”

    Natural selection would not eliminate it if the indavidual components serve an alternate function.

    “Likewise, there is no indication that the flagellum could serve its current porpose if we were to take parts from it, though I do not deny that it could serve others.”

    If such is the case, it ceases to become evidence for ID. If the flagellum could have developed from simple precursors serving similar or vastly different functions, the need to invoke and intelligent will to explain the flagellum is eliminated.

    As for the comparison between ID and creationism, I’ll have to agree with you and Joel both. ID did begin as a ploy to sneak creationism into public school and to sabotage the effective teaching of evolutionary biology. It has, however, developed since then. Its the same as its always been on paper, but the ulterior motive of the original writer is not present in all those who accept the argument. Ultimately, it is nothing more than the good old teleological argument, which can be analyzed independently from creationism. My 2 cents, anyway

    – Chalmer

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 21, 2009

  10. [...] Design utilized by Neo-Darwinists is, in fact, a straw man. — Since then, I have run across the same anti-ID argument i a couple of comments on an Athiest blog from someone who has apparently investigated the [...]

    Pingback by More on Arguments against Irreducible Complexity « Debunking Athiesm | March 21, 2009

  11. Chalmer says,

    “It does not. It shows that some junk DNA has been found functional. I blame this one on sensationalistic journalism. If you actually read the original publication you’ll find that the truth of the matter is far less sensational. Always be suspicious of absolutes. “

    Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll be sure to look it up.

    “While ID may be true, it is certainly not necessarily so, and probably not so. Based on your presentation of ID, the only prediction that have come true are those already expected and predicted by evolutionary theory. How exactly do you distinguish ID from evolution?”

    It’s not I can define ID. It’s really how the ID. It depends on the ID proponent.

    Evolution, from an ID perspective is perfectly acceptable. — Again, depending on the ID proponent you are talking to.

    Some believe in common descent. Micheal Behe himself is an example of such an ID proponent.

    He himself said,

    “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

    You’ll find several others that disagree with him.

    The one universal definition of ID, whether the ID proponent believes in common descent or not, is that they believe certain orgaisms are to complex to have evolved in the first place.

    “It is possible that some no longer serve a function, and that we are observing them in a state of decay. As you say, though, we can not assume they are all non-functional. You, however, are being unreasonable in assuming they are all functional, or at least that they are all serving the same function.”

    To be honest, I actually agree with you. Function should not be automatically assumed. But it should not be counted out either.

    “Natural selection would not eliminate it if the indavidual components serve an alternate function.”

    Thanks for pointing this one out. — I wrote a post on this including that argument. I just erased it as a last moment correction. :)

    I appreciate your responce.

    Comment by krissmith777 | March 21, 2009

  12. “Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll be sure to look it up.”

    If you have trouble accessing it, my status as a student grants me access to a large number of journals, and I would be willing to forward it too you in some form.

    “It’s not I can define ID. It’s really how the ID. It depends on the ID proponent.

    Evolution, from an ID perspective is perfectly acceptable. — Again, depending on the ID proponent you are talking to.”

    I sort of agree. I think this regresses into either a God of the gaps argument, or the first cause argument, thereby ceasing to be reminiscent of ID. The more mechanisms of evolution that are acknowledged as naturalistic, the less improtant God becomes in explaining complexity. The question ultimately becomes “Where did the laws that dictate evolution come from?”

    “The one universal definition of ID, whether the ID proponent believes in common descent or not, is that they believe certain orgaisms are to complex to have evolved in the first place.”

    I’m inclined to agree.

    “To be honest, I actually agree with you. Function should not be automatically assumed. But it should not be counted out either.”

    Agreed, and thank you for considering my comments.
    – Chalmer

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 21, 2009

  13. It seems that while evolution is defined the same exact way no matter the biologist you talk to (ie it’s objective”, I.D.’s definition is dependent on the person and thus pretty subjective, if not totally so. What you are ignoring here krissmith777 is that the idea of “design” is subjective. Humans are predisposed to see design when it isn’t there (ie pictures in the clouds. If you saw a pattern of a rabbit in the clouds I don’t think you’d attempt to claim there was a giant rabbit in the sky). Thus, things only appear to be designed, when they probably aren’t. Evolution has been proven through and through from an incredible and vast array of different scientific disciplines spanning over a century. Either its a vast conspiracy or it’s true. Given the evidence and the fact that such a conspiracy is laughable at best, one would have to accept it. I.D. ultimately relies on a severe lack of imagination and an unwillingness to accept that the last gap god has to fill is “first cause” which is also on it’s way out. I don’t mean this in a way that is demeaning, it’s just that I don’t engage in sugarcoating. I’m direct. I.D. fails to explain the mechanism by which it works, while evolution does. There isn’t a single example that I.D. proponents have presented that doesn’t have a vast literature on the evolutionary history and mechanisms, it just requires looking for them, which Behe didn’t and continues not to do, which isn’t the mark of a good scientist.

    Joel

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | March 22, 2009

  14. [...] weak die- the strong carry on to pass on their genes” and creationists knows it! Even some creationists are starting to accept and endorse Natural Selection– to the point of distorting it to their [...]

    Pingback by Jesus, Dinosaurs, and More Creationist Vomit Part 4 | Stupid Dinosaurs in Creationist La La Land | April 10, 2009

  15. —- Long time no talk.
    — I just thought I’d update you on this topic.

    Just to say that even though I am still a Christian, I am no longer a creationist. — That change took place late June.

    Comment by krissmith777 | April 9, 2010


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: