Why do you think "Answers in Genesis" won't answer this?

Question

Their contact form doesn't give you a copy of your question so I am remembering it as best I can:

"I read with interest your thesis that both evolutionism and creationism are "axiomatic". Is the thesis that "no new information" arises within DNA axiomatic as well?"

I have received no answer to what, as it is a pretty central part of their thesis, should be a quick and easy reply.

Is this because:

- If its not axiomatic then it can (and has been) shown to be false? or
- If it is axiomatic then the whole of evolutionary theory is completely compatible with it?

The use of the word "axiom" here is on the lines of what you assume before looking at the world. The axiom is the lens through which you look at facts. On this basis its quite ok for both Evolution and Creation to be axiomatic: just for different people.

I don't know whether he meant it but I think birdflies has it "The day you can prove to me that creation is not true, will be the day I will talk about axiomatic" ie creationists are happy for creationism to be a scientific theory until its proved false at which point they will shift and retreat into a priorism.

Answer 1

Their use of the word "information" is intellectually dishonest and meaningless, as is the whole of ID to be honest.

Answer 2

I think your answer lies in the first part of the sentence: if the author has concluded that evolution and creationism are axiomatic, he or she is willing to accept both as being the unquestionable truth. The author proposes that no proof is needed because any observer can see the conclusion is correct.

On the other hand, the conclusion that "no new information arises within DNA" is actually a theorem, not an axiom. Proof of this must be given, otherwise there is no way to demonstrate this is true.

For example, we do not see puppies being born of women (although that would be interesting!) When a woman conceives, we naturally assume (an axiom) that a human being will be born roughly 40 weeks later. To propose that a puppy would be born because the parents' DNA can produce new information -- this is a theorem. It must be proven.

I would say that the author started from a weak position to presuppose BOTH evolution and creationism are axioms. (I believe one is axiomatic and the other a theorem.) Because your question effectively pointed out that BOTH cannot be axiomatic, the author may be at a loss to explain.

Or its possible there's a server problem. You choose.

Answer 3

Answers in Genesis is about obfuscation and rhetoric not science. They still promote arguments that have been proven completely invalid such as "evolution contradicting the second law of thermodynamics" - they have no credibility with anyone that has even a basic scientific knowledge.

Answer 4

I have been writing commentaries to magazines and newspapers for over a year without anything but an automatic
"we got your e-mail" response.

Answer 5

The day you can prove to me that creation is not true, will be the day I will talk about axiomatic.

Answer 6

Evolution does not depend on new DNA information, and so the question is irrelevant.

Evolution depends on the ability of species to evolve.

By observation, we seem to be deteriorating, not evolving. 5000 years ago, human beings were able to live up to 100 years in the complete absense of medical care. Today, this would be very rare.

Answer 7

Maybe the guy is too unwell to answer. Or perhaps he just doesn't care about your question as much as you do.

Answer 8

They won't answer it because they can't, at least with any shred of credibility. "Genesis" is a large collection of fairy tales. Equating it with science of any sort is ridiculous at best.

Answer 9

it means they are not mutually exclusive. they can be co-equal explanations for each on its own merits.