What do you "creationists" say about this?

Question

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

Answer 1

I love how they still argue like they actually have an intellectual leg to stand on. It's just sad.

Answer 2

Well, I'm not strictly a creationist, but since I'm one of the intelligent design nuts lumped in with the creationists in the second paragraph, I might as well respond. First, I'm surprised at the level of hostility with which this is written, evidenced throughout the article. I would think if the scientific evidence is as rigorous as the author claims, there would be no need for the kind personal attacks against creationists. But perhaps I am wrong, so I will move on.

Point #8 seems to dismiss the randomness of evolution. While it's true that natural selection helps diminish the randomness, natural selection doesn't play any part in the process prior to self-replication. Since the actual argument addressed at #8 says "...it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance," the author seems to have forgotten two of the three parts of this argument when he answered it, despite having written this version of it himself. Secondly, the computer program is far from an accurate analogy to evolution. The letter sequence TOBEORNOTTOBE is hardly intelligible. If the phrase "To be or not to be" is analogous to a living organism, TOBEORNOTTOBE has a few steps left to take (at random, mind you). Also, although natural selection preserves what works in the biological systems of an organism, it preserves nothing if the entire organism does not function as a whole. The 13-letter sequence TWPLNXZVBRILK would die if it were an organism, despite having the first letter right. Yet even if it survived, there is nothing requiring that first letter to stay there. Although natural selection encourages organisms with, to continue the analogy, letters in the right places, the letter can still randomly mutate away from where it's supposed to be. Ultimately, although the author is right in that evolution does not happen completely at random, his analogy does not have enough randomness to work.

Point #14 is missing some steps. Paley's argument still holds; a light-sensitive patch is very far from an eye, even a primitive one. Intermediate steps between the patch and the eye are hardly preserved by natural selection, since there is no use for, as the author says, "half an eye," and although the patch itself is useful, there are required intermediate steps that offer no usefulness at all.

Point #15 addresses irreducible complexity. While many things seen in nature have simpler forms, there are still many that do not, and that do actually exhibit irreducible complexity, especially on a biochemical level.

Yawn. I see nothing new here. I was all ready for something challenging.

Answer 3

Oh, no, I don't ignore it! I find this fascinating!

Especially the part where they try to prove me wrong and yet make my point for me all at the same time: "Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way." Sounds to me like they're saying that there is no record of spontaneouos complex life generation. Therefore, they leave only simple life generation as an alternative.

But before that, they said "The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation." Stated another way this says that they haven't found any spontaneous simple life generation either but instead are simply believing it to be there based on what they have found--hence, they are stating that one must have faith to believe in evolution.

And then they prove my point for me again: "If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.." Yet Christ who was not of this earth and existed before this earth did come to earth and taught us that God is the Creator. They ignore that little bit of evidence too, claiming it to be "just religion" or "non-sense" or "unreliable" or whatever.

Oh, and here's their big proof of evolution that is supposed to be documented:

"For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

They bred flies... with flies... and got... flies.

Wow.

I've got this idea that a Chihuaha would refuse to breed with a Great Dane or Saint Bernard, too... but they're all dogs and that's not a jump from one kind of animal to another.

Where's the tomato that grew up to be a tiger?

Interesting article though. Sorry I didn't address everything. Some of it's right, too.

Answer 4

I'm not a creationist or evolutionist. It's ridiculous to define oneself in such terms.

Anyhow, this article is very telling. It makes me wonder why evolutionists are so much on the defensive. I looked at each question, and the genesis (no pun intended) of SciAm's paranoia seems to be rooted in Philip E Johnson's "Darwin on Trial," written in the 80s. He addresses all of these issues in a very forthright, sober, and intellectual manner. I recommend that book to all who are interested in the evolution/creation debates.

In his book, Johnson does NOT push creationism. In fact, he barely mentions the bible. He does look at the arguments of evolutionists and criticizes them as a lawyer would (he is a Harvard law professor). He also makes a very "compelling" (to use a tired and overused word from the SciAm article) argument that evolution resembles a religion: it has its evangelists, saints, martyrs, sins, commandments, rituals, holy writs, denominations, rewards and punishments, even excommunication for heretics. A fascinating study.

Answer 5

I find it humurous that within many of those statements, such as the following, they use circular referencing:

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

The Jurassic Period strata that they claim is 144 million years old is a lie. Flat out lie. There is nothing that has ever, or will ever proove such a so-called "scientific fact". Your article is a bunch of brainwashing jargon.

Answer 6

Why do you take such a confrontational tone? I looked at the article. I believe in God. I think we are both right. Why couldn't God have started everything and let it evolve? I think that there were some parts in the article that didn't make sense. Like the part that said one of the creationist arguments was if humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys and then
it responds that that is like saying if children descended from adults, why are there still adults. Okay, no. That makes no sense. Bad comparison. Anyways. I think we are both right and I'm done.

Answer 7

I'm very well educated. I understand the math, biology and genetics principles that go into evolution. I read your article and put in the "hard work" it takes to understand it all.

But I still believe in God. I still believe in the creation. Whatever mechanisms He built into the creation to keep it going after that are just a further gift.

Are evolution and the power of God mutually exclusive?

Answer 8

It's easier to say some sentient being just made it so than to learn all of science involved and associated with evolution. It takes hard work and a lot of thought to come up with what is contained in the article. IMHO

Answer 9

I guess I#ll be way at the bottom because it took a while to actualy read the article and think about it. Most Creationists won't make it through for starters, and if they do They'll start ranting on about god making no actual reference to this article, as usual, and if they do I#ll be surprised. Thanx

Answer 10

Notice that both sides of the question seem to favor ONLY ONE of the two theories being taught. What are people afraid of? If one's beliefs are so intelligent, why not teach both and let the individuals decide.

People seem to favor mind control over choice decision. It comes from a selfish desire to dictate. Prejudice.

Answer 11

Interesting, you should see the video Evolution vs Creation and the New World Order by Ken Hovind.