From the Mailbox…
My Request: Patrick, put up some hard evidence, if there is any, that God created earth. That is evidence which stands on its own, and has a clear chain of un-tampered evidence.
On April 11, 2013 I posted the following quote from Dr’s Henry and John Morris. What follows is a point by point response to a critic of this quote…
“As noted earlier, it is not possible scientifically to prove either evolution or creation. Neither is it possible to prove whether the earth and universe are old or young. One must exercise faith in whichever one he or she chooses to believer, and this is not ultimately a scientific decision…We maintain, however, that faith in creation is a reasonable faith, based on sound evidence, whereas faith in evolution is a credulous faith, exercised against all evidence! The choice has eternal consequences, one way or the other, and we would urge our readers at least to consider the evidence.” Henry Morris PhD, John Morris PhD, Science and Creation, November 1996, p. 23
Dusty Gilbert wrote…
I really appreciated the first part of this quote! It really supports what I have been trying to get at, that no one can prove what happened (despite hot [sic] others comments may say >_>) what happened, no one was there, and no one has found a mechanism which has successfully reproduced the results.
If, as you say, this quote really supports what you’ve been trying to say and you remain consistent with your proposition then you agree that evolution is no more scientific than is creation. Both theories are INFERENCES or, scientific models based on inferences. Whichever model is best confirmed by the facts is the more likely to be true – but this is a LOGICAL conclusion and logic cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic mechanism. Thus, evolution has no edge over creation by your own admission.
But I wonder how you came to such a conclusion? In our discussions back and forth you’ve presented yourself as an evolutionist. The theory of evolution is a scientific model attempting to explain reality by means of purely mechanistic, naturalistic means – and yet tries to use LOGIC to explain itself. This is a contradiction. If we human beings are nothing more than random re-arrangements of pond scum then laws of logic make no sense. As professor Haldane put it ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (possible Worlds, p. 209) How then can you account for the very logic you are attempting to use here if you are simply a product of a random clash of molecules? Randomness does not produce rationality, logic or information.
Of course, we all take the laws of logic for granted but how can we prove that there are laws of logic in the first place? We have to USE logic in order to form a proof for logic. This is, as Dr. Lisle says “a precondition of intelligibility.” C.S. Lewis puts it this way…
“But, it will be said, it is incontestable that we do in fact reach truths by inferences. Certainly. The Naturalist and I both admit this. We could not discuss anything unless we did. The difference I am submitting is that he gives, and I do not, a history of the evolution of reason which is inconsistent with the claims that he and I both have to make for inference as we actually practice it. For his history is, and from the nature of the case can only be, an account, in Cause and Effect terms, of how people came to think the way they do. And this of course leaves in the air the quite different question of how they could possibly be justified IN SO thinking. This imposes on him the very embarrassing task of trying to show how the evolutionary product which he has described could ALSO be a power of ‘seeing’ truths…But the very attempt is absurd…Inference ITSELF is on trial; that is, the Naturalist has given an account of what we thought to be our inferences which suggests that they are not real insights at all. We, and he, want to be reassured. And the reassurance turns out to be one more inference (if useful, then true) – as if this inference were not, once we accept his evolutionary picture, under the same suspicion as all the rest. If the value of our reasoning is in doubt, you cannot try to establish it by reasoning.” (C.S. Lewis, Miracles, ch 3)
Then I dis-liked it. How is faith in a book that has no physical backing at all a ‘reasonable’ faith?
You do not give any evidence to support your claim that the Bible has “no physical backing at all”. Archaeology is very physical. Even secular historians and archaeologists admit the historical and archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Bible is overwhelming (See Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell). I have to wonder if you actually have a good, logical reason to simply dismiss the Bible and the consensus of secular historians or is this just your uneducated opinion?
There is no – absolutely zero – evidence that a God created life, simply a book written by who knows (there is no proof of the authors). No one can reproduce it, no one saw it happen at the time or since. That is not reasonable at all, and actually in any other circumstance would be considered lunacy! BUT I will not say it is wrong, just that from an empirical standpoint it is absurd.
Empiricism is the concept that truth can only be understood by objective observation. Your point that believing the Bible’s worldview from “an empirical standpoint” is absurd is itself a non-empirical position because empiricism destroys the possibility of knowledge at all. Example: You cannot directly observe the law of gravity on Pluto since you are not there. You must use secondary sources and inferences of the uniformity of nature to make the connection that the laws of gravity work everywhere even though you do not directly observe it. It is empiricism that leads to absurdity. REASON is an inference based on the assumption that logic and our senses are trustworthy – assumptions pure naturalism cannot account for as I pointed out earlier. Creationists interpret evidence in terms of a model that best fits the facts. Our model presupposes intelligently designed, irreducibly complex systems which is what we actually see in the world. That is an inference based on reason – thus, it is a reasonable faith.
At best, there are arguments (such as gaps in the fossil record) which suggests that it might not be other things, but that doesn’t mean this blind faith approach is correct either (ie it isn’t an absolute, one is right, the other is wrong). The Creationist’s approach is one based on disproving others, but offers no evidence to support itself, and because this is not an absolute A-else-B logic, Faith is the only support!
Do you have any evidence for your claim! You freely admit that gaps in the fossil record suggest “that it might not be other things” – so even though gaps in the fossil record fit EXACTLY with the Creationist model and directly contradict the predictions of evolutionary theory you blindly reject this evidence continue to cling to the notion that “it might not be other things”. That’s a blind faith.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not blind. The Creator revealed how He built the creation and we can see for ourselves how the creation itself confirms this revelation. Seeing is not blindness. The Creationist model PREDICTS (from Biblical revelation) that life-form kinds will have adaptability within limits thus, the fossil record will show life-form kinds appearing abruptly and fully formed. This is confirmed by the facts of the fossil record. The Creationist model PREDICTS that life-form kinds will demonstrate irreducibly complex systems that must have been engineered and built and cannot be accounted for by any step-by-step natural process. This is confirmed abundantly in biology.
The evidence for evolution as a mode of propagation – that is natural selection – is everywhere. You can look at our genes and pull out organs and bones that we don’t have, but we have the code for (e.g. tails, gills), these are artifacts of our evolution, and I don’t think you disagree that natural selection exists.
The Creationist model predicts organism design allowing life-forms to survive in multiple environmental conditions. This is “natural selection”. Certain genetic factors would indeed rise to the fore in this scenario and it is readily observable that such phenomena occurs. However, it is a blind faith to assume that such variation within a kind will ever produce entirely new information in the genetic code. The codes themselves are already present in the genome and are merely expressed. This has never been observed. There is no “hard evidence” that entirely new information to code for entirely novel structures (such as a lung or a wing etc) has ever been written into the genome of any life-form. Variation of gene expression allowing for survival in multiple environments is a design feature predicted by the Creationist model. Believing that variation will lead to entirely new coding information when there is no “hard evidence” of this is inconsistent with the observable facts. That is a blind faith.
In terms of coding for “vestigial organs” I quote Dr. Tomkins (PhD, Genetics, Clemson University) in an article published in 2012. (Tomkins, J. 2012. Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise. Acts & Facts. 41 (11): 11-13.)
“Although the human genome may only contain ~21,000 genes, scientists found 70,292 areas called gene promoters that precede the protein-coding areas of genes. This finding confirms the idea that genes are like molecular Swiss army knives, providing a diversity of products and outcomes depending on how they are operated and controlled.
Gene expression is controlled by a broad array of regulatory proteins, chemical marks in the DNA (epigenetic factors), gene promoter features (specific DNA sites), and enhancer sequences that are sometimes located thousands and millions of bases from a gene or set of genes. All of these features operate in concert with other genes and regulatory features in irreducibly complex and intricately coordinated networks.”
Thus, genetic similarities to coding portions of DNA from other organisms proves nothing about descent with modification. Genetic expression is tightly controlled – and that is an irreducibly complex network which is a hallmark of design. Irreducibly complex structures are consistent with the Creationist model and predictions.
I don’t know what the authors mean when they say against all evidence, I have not seen any solid evidence which disproves it:
The authors are referring to the idea that evidence of irreducible complexity, systematic gaps in the fossil record and other proofs must be completely ignored to continue believing in a mechanistic, naturalistic process “creating” life-forms over time (evolution). Ignoring such solid evidence with does disprove evolutionary predictions is believing “against all evidence.” This sort of arbitrary and inconsistent thinking is irrational.
Fossil record- suggestive, not proof (and getting weaker all the time, see my previous post of the fish with legs)
Please see my article on your “fish with legs”. F. protensa was an arthropod, not a fish and in no way demonstrates a transitional form. Furthermore, there are no convincing transitional forms between pre-Cambrian single celled organisms and the complex invertebrates of the Cambrian nor are there any between the Cambrian invertebrate and fish. This is in accord with predictions of the Creaitonist model but directly denies predictions of the evolution model.
Biogenisis – never has there been an experiment big enough to test this, but even the limited scale tests we could do were supportive of evolution
You admit that your theory is not subject to experimental testing – thus it is an inference and no more scientific than the Creationist model (which you challenge cannot be tested). You state that limited scale tests are supportive of evolution but provide no evidence to back up your claim.
Perhaps you refer to the famous Miller-Urey tests. These tests, and all others like them, produced a limited number of amino acids (certainly not all necessary for life). The “reducing atmosphere” required in his experiments is now known not to have existed on this planet. Besides, the amino acids these experiments produce are “racimized” (evenly distributed between ‘left handed’ and ‘right handed’) whereas all amino acids in living systems are left handed. An intelligent agent is required to put 100% left handed amino acids of just about 20 types (when there are hundreds to choose from in 50/50 ratios of left to right) in exactly the right order to create information in a coded sequence. I quote science writer Brian Thomas M.S…
“After decades of investigation, no environment has been discovered that facilitates abiogenesis. The richest inventory of chemical compounds have been zapped, irradiated, dried, rehydrated, and subjected to a host of parameters. All of these processes, however, have resulted in disorganized matter. In order to provide an appropriate framework for life, a machinist would still be necessary, one who could construct several thousand specific proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and lipids in their exact configurations, all the while maintaining the integrity of each molecule in the collection.” (http://www.icr.org/article/origin-life-research-still-dead/ Oct 27, 2008)
2nd Law and Entropy – As discussed before, not valid for open systems strictly negative evolutionary traits – an absolute faleshood, see Darwin and his finch beaks, natural selection at work with food being the driver
Darwin’s finches are still finches and they are still birds. Variation within a species does not demonstrate that variation can produce and entirely new structure. The information to code for these changes in localized morphology were already present in the genome. Evolution postulates that entirely new information is randomly assembled – but this has never been observed and Darwin’s finches certainly don’t show it.
As far as Thermodynamics – I am working on a paper on this subject but in the meantime I quote Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (The natural sciences know nothing of evolution”, 1981, p. 59 – 60. Dr. Wilder-Smith had 3 earned PhD’s in physical organic chemistry and pharmacology)…
“Raw matter within an close system, plus a teleonomic machine, might yield “autoorganization’ derived from endogenous energy. Raw matter within an open system, plus a teleonomic machine may yield “authoorganization”derived from endogenous and /or exogenous energy. Within both open and closed systems, however, a mechanism (machine, teleonomy, now-how) is essential if any autoorganization is to result…Present-day Neodarwinians claim that the autoorganization of matter took place prebiotically. They forget, however, to clarify the fact that for all such autoorganization, mechanisms or machines are an absolute prerequisite if reduced entropy is to be stored and autoorganization is to result. Such scientists tacitly assume that raw inorganic prebiotic matter was capable of functioning teleonomically as an energy rectifier, such as chlorophyll. This is due to a lock of insight into the principles laid down by the second law of thermodynamics.”
Ethics – inherently stabilizes a society, does not need a God to make
Ethics can stabilize a society – if people follow ethics, which they often do not. The Creationist model explains ethics as written directly into us but that we are in rebellion against it. If ethics is simply a survival mechanism, some sort of chemical impulse in the brain then morality and ethics are purely relative to survival. There is no absolute – thus, murder is not “wrong” if it promotes survival value. In fact, from an evolutionary point of view there is no such thing as right and wrong. The Creationist model predicts ethics and morality as outcomes of the Creator’s mind and heart.
Assuming ethics and morality as simply “what works” or “whatever is relative to stability” is completely arbitrary. If everyone can select ethics and morality at will then no one can argue that what other people to is actually wrong – they can also select their own morality. Without God, morality and ethics do not make sense and there is no objective standard upon which to base those concepts.
IF I approached creationism as creationists aproach [sic] evolution I would say: There is no physical evidence of this, thus it is False.
No one saw it happen, thus it is False.
It is not recreatable, [sic] thus it is False.
Why do we see evolution on a local level – small scale natural selection like – but not macroscale? An alternative theory exists, thus yours must be False.
This close-minded absoluteness is wrong, and that I why I appreciated the first part of this post.
I read through these posts and they are all negative towards evolution, that is not “Understanding-Creationism”, but rather “Attacking-Evolutionism”.
I don’t think you understand the Creationist model. Creationists do not deny science. In fact, our prediction based on the Creationist model is that we can, in fact, trust our senses, the universe should be understandable, it should be logical and consistent because it was created by a logical, consistent being.
Creationists do not approach evolution as you describe above. Every observation indicates that irreducible complexity stems from an intelligent source. We see irreducible complexity in all living systems thus, it is consistent to interpret this as evidence of an intelligent designer. It is close-minded to dismiss intelligent design (and by extension Creationism as a whole) a priori.
My Request: Patrick, put up some hard evidence, if there is any, that God created earth. That is evidence which stands on its own, and has a clear chain of un-tampered evidence. I am not asking why others are wrong, but rather, why is creation right? Is there any such evidence? or is it all – as I suspect – based on faith?
And your quote is old again, and from a civil engineer and a geologist. The statement that “The choice has eternal consequences…” indicates that they are not approaching this empirically but rather from a biased standpoint.
You seem to arbitrarily dismiss the fact that the Creationist predictions as amply described in this answer are confirmed time and again by the facts. Irreducible complexity, gaps in the fossil record, probability etc are all systematic and overwhelmingly in support of predictions made by the Creationist model of origins. This is not just “anti-evolution” but these facts and confirmations by observation stand fully on their own in support of the Creationist model.
Finally, an old quote can be just as valid as a new quote – the content of the quote is what matters. The fact that Dr. Henry Morris was an Engineer and Dr. John Morris is a Geologist is irrelevant to the content of what they wrote. Both of these men are trained professional scientists with advanced degrees from secular, highly esteemed universities. Why should their particular emphasis in science somehow disqualify them a priori? By such an arbitrary standard you have nothing to say on this issue either since your advanced degree is incomplete and only at the Master’s level. I’m not trying to be mean either but subtle “appeals to authority” or “straw man” fallacies do nothing to answer the content of what Dr. Morris was saying.
In fact, you appeal to “evidence which stands on its own, and has a clear chain of un-tampered evidence” but if your evolutionary worldview is correct – you couldn’t know it. Rationality by itself is evidence which stands on its own. Logic in and of itself is a clear chain of un-tampered evidence that only a rational being could have designed and built the universe.