A friend of mine sent the following editorial to the Milwaukee JS:
By TOM PHILLIPS
Posted: Dec. 21, 2005
There has been much propaganda regarding intelligent design.In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.
While microevolution, which is change within a species, is observed and scientific, macroevolution, which is what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance.
Such "spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.
Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form - something also never observed and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis states numerous times: Life reproduces "according to its kind," i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology, we understand why.
All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind." Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man's has several billion.
The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents.
Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Even evolutionists accept the finding that all humans descended from a relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell's powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother.
The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."
The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links." It isn't. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record - just as if God created all life individually.
Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is unique because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution.
Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature's chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power. Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe; he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."
Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer, calculated nature's chances of producing the 2,000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong" and concludes, "Life cannot have had a random beginning . . . but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."
Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."
Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world." Einstein knew the universe didn't happen by chance.
Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is scientific must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes and that one life form can turn into another, higher form.
Science demands it. Put up or shut up.
Here's what the Journal printed:
The big lie, recently reiterated by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in the Dover, PA case, is that evolution is "scientific" but that creation/design is not. The opposite is true. It is WRONG for the courts to let atheists use public schools and public money to teach a (very unscientific) theory that supports their atheism, while forbidding believers to teach a (scientific) theory that supports their beliefs.
An effective way to debunk evolution is to use Darwin himself. He has no fewer than four chapters in The Origin Of Species which present serious problems with his own theory: "Chapter VI --Difficulties of the Theory," wherein he touches on "design" questions in discussing "Organs of extreme perfection" (such as the eye); "Chapter VII --Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection," wherein he actually discredits the modern theory of "punctuated equilibrium" in discussing "Reasons for disbelieving in great and abrupt modifications" of changes within species; "Chapter VIII --Instinct,"wherein he discusses "Difficulties of the theory of the natural selection of instincts"; and "Chapter X --"On the Imperfection of the Geological Record" --my Quotes from Darwin in the editorial come from this chapter. A judge can scarcely say that Darwin's book is "scientific" except for four chapters.
FYI: The Journal also dis-remembered that Tom has TWO degrees: a B.S. Bio (Magna cum Laude) from Boston College, and an MS Educational Psych, (4.0 GPA) from UW-Milwaukee.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
'Tis some mighty powerful arguments, especially for the Christian version of ID; Creationism. Of course, the Evolutionists now claim that guesses are more real than observable truth while at the same time denying that they follow a (false) religion.
If ID is a theory equivalent to the theories of gravity. electromagnetism, or evolution, then all its adherents need to do is test it in the same manner that other such theories are tested.
First they must show how it explains the observations. We know things fall to earth when dropped, which is an observation. The theory of gravity is the explanation of that observation. No one claims that an invisible entity pushes things to earth when we let them go, which would be the gravitational equivalent of ID. Newton's theory of gravity stood unchallenged until Einstein showed that it was not completely accurate, and that the theory of relativity was a better explanation of the observations.
Ever since Darwin, scientists have observed that organisms evolve, and that one species can evolve into another. The first thing the design proponents need to do is show how their "theory" explains this observation.
Next, they must show how their "theory" can be used to make predictions that can be tested. In 1859 Darwin said that in order for his theory to be true, there must be a physical substance that transmitted heredity. It was not until nearly 90 years later that this substance, DNA, was identified and its mechanics studied, but Darwin's prediction turned out to be accurate, a profound example of the usefulness of the theory of Evolution, since testing it led to an entirely new branch of science, a branch which has turned up massive amounts of new data that support the ToE.
Finally, the ID proponents must show us how ID can be "falsified," i.e. give us an example of a hypothetical observation that would show it to be false. As an example, if a dog gave birth to a cat, the Theory of Evolution would be falsified. That hasn't happened yet, so the theory stands uncontradicted.
ID proponents claim that the scientific community shuts them out, without admitting that they have failed to meet even the lowest standard of testing their ideas. Despite their claims, overturning an accepted scientific claim is the fastest way to collect a Nobel Prize, and the means of doing so are well known. The only argument they seem to make it the argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "If I can'tunderstand how this happened, there has to be a designer." This position is not useful to a scientist, because it can't be used to suggest an experiment to test it. On the contrary, it suggests that further testing is unnecessary because nothing more can be learned, which is the exact opposite of the scientific method that we have found so useful.
All the ID proponents have to do in order to validate their idea, which does not yet reach the level of being a theory, is to use it to explain observations of evolution, tell us how it can be falsified, and then make a prediction based on ID that is DIFFERENT from what the ToE would predict, and test it for accuracy. IF they can make predictions that are consistently more accurate than what the ToE predicts, everyone will switch over.
Biologists use the ToE because it is a useful tool, not because they are anti-science. No other theory explains the observations and has been shown to be a more accurate predictor of biological events, and until something more useful comes along, there is only one "theory" to choose from.
If ID has failed to make an impact on the scientific community, it is only because those who adhere to it have failed to make their case in the same manner that the ToE has. They have had nearly 150 years to do so, and I have stopped holding my breath.
We are aware that there are MICRO-evolutionary events (e.g., the fruitflies.)
Yeah, DNA exists. YOU claim that DNA 'has provided massive evidence [to substantiate] TOE--yet I don't see an example of same in your post.
ID is, no doubt, the "proof" behind claims that there is an Intelligent Designer. You may discard such proof at your own risk. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Evolution cannot explalin karyotypes .Because meiosis obstructs the generation of novel inheritable karyotypes.Karyotypes make a complete mockery of the theory of evolution which is why evolutionists so assiduously ignore them.Many other features of karyotypes prove that they did not originate by means of incremental evolution.Karyotypes cannot tolerate gain or loss of chromosomes anyway.
Post a Comment