8/30/2006
Darwin’s legacy of death
Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries is showing a documentary called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” this weekend. This documentary will show you how what you believe can lead to a horribly deadly end; case in point, Hitler and the holocaust.
Some folks like meathead are having a fit about this subject matter, and to be honest, I think that’s terrific! It means people are talking about it. Horrified that his idols would be taken to task or be exposed for their true belief systems rather than swallow the stupidity of leftists lulled into a trance with mantras and eastern chants–it is satisfying to see bloggers attacking Kennedy, because where they’re leftist outrage, you know you’ve struck a chord with the truth.
From the Coral Ridge Ministries website here:
Ann Coulter is stunned. How is it, she asks, that she could go through 12 years of public school, then college and law school, and still not know that it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens.
“I never knew about the link between Darwin and Hitler until after reading Richard Weikart’s book,” said Coulter, a popular conservative columnist and a featured expert on the new Coral Ridge Hour documentary, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which airs August 26 and 27. Hitler, she said, “was applying Darwinism. He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along.”
Coulter is among those who appear on Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a disturbing look at the historical impact of the theory of evolution and the shaky scientific ground on which it rests.
Other guests on the program include Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men. “Among German historians, there’s really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist,” said Weikart. “He clearly was drawing on Darwinian ideas.”
No Darwin, No Hitler
“To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler,” said Dr. Kennedy, the host of Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. “Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it.”But the social fallout from evolution has not been limited to Hitler. Eugenics, the idea that social engineers should monitor and manage choices to marry and have children, is the intellectual offspring of evolution. Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term and campaigned for using human genetics as a means to breed a superior breed of humanity.
Eugenics took root in America in the early twentieth century—some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Planned Parenthood is a direct result of the eugenics movement in America. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.” “Eugenics is applied Darwinism,” said Coulter. “And it sticks out like a sore thumb that all of these German eugenicists preceding the Nazi regime were enthusiastic Darwinists.”
Evolution is taught in every public school in America, and not without consequences, as Darwin’s Deadly Legacy documents. Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 people and themselves in the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Their goal was to bring death to more than 500. Harris wrote on his website, “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”
The autopsy report for Harris revealed that on the day of the attack, he wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Natural Selection.” Harris and Klebold, who planned their rampage for a year, paid homage to their hero, Adolf Hitler by carrying out their killing spree on April 20, Hitler’s birthday.
Grim Legacy
The legacy of Charles Darwin, Dr. Kennedy said, is “millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed inferior, the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness.” All this from a theory based on a crumbling scientific foundation—as the special makes plain.“The time has come,” Dr. Kennedy said, “to recognize that evolution is a bad idea and should be, frankly, discarded into the dustbin of history.”
At WorldNetDaily:
Rabbi defends show linking Darwin, Hitler
Coral Ridge production stirs controversy before broadcast
Rabbi Lapin, whose organization (Toward Tradition) works to advance the nation toward “the traditional Judeo-Christian values that defined America’s creation and became the blueprint for her greatness,” had a different perspective.
“I believe it appropriate for thoughtful Jews to support the Coral Ridge documentary and perhaps even for it to be shown in Jewish schools because there really are only two ways to account for human presence on our planet. One is that God created us in His image. The other is that by a lengthy and random process of totally unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm evolved into Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven. This approach, ruling out any role for God, is simply incompatible with Jewish values,” he said.
At the American Chronicle there’s an article about it, go read it.
And while you’re at it, watch your television programming for “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” or purchase several copies of the CD and distribute to friends and family!
The 60-minute special will feature Coulter; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler; Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; and other experts.
Also see
‘Darwin’s Deadly Legacy’ Gives Shocking Look at Social Impact
Also see this post at the ID Report
“‘Evolution’ Study implies U.S. Science Education Lagging behind Europe,” Agape Press, Aug. 21, 2006
“Darwin-Hitler connection sparks attacks,” WorldNetDaily.com, Aug. 22, 2006
“ADL Furious Over Darwin Documentary,” NewsMax.com, Aug. 22, 2006
“Americans Stubbornly Refuse to Accept Evolution,” NewsMax.com, Aug. 23, 2006
I have noted quite a bit of this before, but it’s always amusing to see meatball come out of idiotaria to offer his stupidity on the subject…as though all of these experts don’t know what they’re talking about.
Previous:
Why Evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky and Stalin
Marx & Engels: writings quotes and parallels to today’s leftists
Incidentally there is some evidence here regarding the Third Reich’s persecution of the Christian Churches. Hitler was not a creationist; he was a GREEN who believed in the ‘animal element’ one of the reasons why they made smoking illegal, and made the Black Forest a ‘preserve’.
From Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience comes an excellent piece called Fascist Ecology: The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier, which presents a brief and necessarily schematic overview of the ecological components of Nazism, emphasizing both their central role in Nazi ideology and their practical implementation during the Third Reich. A preliminary survey of nineteenth and twentieth century precursors to classical ecofascism should serve to illuminate the conceptual underpinnings common to all forms of reactionary ecology.
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.” 1
1. Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11. Lehmann was a professor of botany who characterized National Socialism as “politically applied biology.”
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2005) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship. Here’s a short blurb from the narrative on the dust jacket:
…many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.
The Voice linked with Darwin’s Deadly Legacy
August 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
[…] Read more […]
August 30th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
But, of course, you don’t hear about this connection because, like the link between Nazism and socialism, it embarrasses the left. They love Darwinism because it reduces human beings to the level of animals, which is just the way that leftists regard us — To them, we’re just ‘things’ to push around and experiment on. Ugh.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Hitler was a Christian is a popular Islamofascist propaganda talking point.
In fact, Hitler himself thought of Christianity as an extension of Judaeism, which he hated. He much preferred the Islamists, which is why there was an Islamist branch in the SS. I’ve never heard a Christian or “creationist” talk this way about Christianity.
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
Here’s a quotation from a speech by Hitler from 1937:
So now’s a perfect time to hone our critical thinking, skills by asking a couple of questions: Is Hitler talking about his faith in God or Creation- or is he just trying to impress his audience? If Hitler believes in “Providence”, does he mean the Christian God or some mystical force of history or fate? Hitler also glorified Nature:
I think we already have the answer for that.
You’re right Rotty; it’s very embarrassing to them, which is why the denials come in such a vociferous manner.
Hitler’s Actions
August 30th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
And then, of course, there’s the whole Fredrick ‘God is dead’ Nietze connection with Nazism. Although Nietze wasn’t a socialist per se, he supported the ideas of Darwinism, and his thinking impacted heavily on people like Sartre and the whole moral relativism so beloved of the modern left.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:49 am
I don’t know a lot about Nietzsche, although from Wikipedia it looks as though the Nazis viewed hin as one of their “founding fathers”. Interesting, Rotty.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Hitler, like Sanger and others were believers in Darwin and also believed in eugenics. Hitler’s “Final Solution” (and not an original term with him either) was about purifing the “race” and purging it of all the “destructive” elements such as the retarded, the handicapped, the Jews, the Slavs etc.
Hitler was no Christian is the absolute truth.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Funny how meatbrain was having an absolute fit about this, but suddenly stopped his trackbacks and emails. He must have moved onto something else. Too many Wide Awakes to monitor and attack; so little time.
Thanks for commenting, GM. It’s about time that the truth got out about all of this; Hitler was no “Christian”. And you have a personal perspective on Germany that I think a lot of people are not aware of.
There is so much in this world that is scaring the bejeezus out of me when I put together an entire big picture.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:27 am
I don’t quite understand what this is all about.
Evolution is an undeniable fact of life.
It doesn’t really matter who announced it or when or even what it may or may not have led to, the fact is it’s there and you can’t ignore it.
If it wasn’t Darwin, it would have been someone else.
Like it or not, everyone on the planet is, by being part of evolution, a Darwinian.
You are free to believe in a form of Supreme Being but it won’t alter the fact you are a “Darwinian” just as the fact I may believe that the sun won’t come up tomorrow won’t stop it rising as usual.
The fact that a large number of people use drugs for addictive purposes doesn’t mean the person who discovered, or invented them for legitimate and beneficial medical reason has reason to be blamed for a negative effect.
What? Is the person who first discovered and announced the existence of bacteria and/or viruses responsible for germ warfare, the discoverer of radiation responsible for the atomic bomb?
The fact is, if you were to do other than blindly follow the most flimsy, vaguely possible negative aspect of Darwin’s theory, you would realise that it is his theory of evolution that has led to much of today’s major “medical breakthroughs”.
Darwin’s theory has saved many more lives than those purported to be lost based on your spurious non factual allegations.
And note, denigrating one of the world’s true thinkers (without thinking yourselves) does nothing to aid in any weak and implausible “intelligent design” theory you may have.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Maybe in your imagination it is a ‘fact of life’ but nowhere in my world can ‘the theory of evolution’ even remotely be construed as ‘factual’; all of the evidence they’ve produced - Piltdown man’s fake skull, the four-winged fruitfly, vestigial organs, etc.–have all been discounted. Evolution is being treated as though it’s a ‘fact’ when it’s an ancient outdated 18th century disproven ‘theory’.
I can get into the scientific evidence if you like, but I’m limited on time. Came home sick, I’m lying down for a while.
Here are a few questions I’ll leave you to ponder, from Concerned Women for America:
1. Origin of Life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth—when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
2. Darwin’s Tree of Life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor—thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry—a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
4. Vertebrate Embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry—even though biologists have known vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds—even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
6. Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection—when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
7. Darwin’s Finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection—even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no evolution remained?
8. Mutant Fruit Flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution—even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
9. Human Origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident—when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
10. Evolution a Fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact—even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Source: Web site for Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2000). Dr. Wells is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a member of several scientific associations, and has been published widely in academic journals.
October 6th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Cao,
Hope you get well soon.
Why do you refer to old theories that have clearly been revised and updated, as the quotations themselves suggest?
It is clear evolution is an undeniable fact but many of the points you use are so “old hat”, even to me, they are basically comical.
No point in defending “the world is flat” is there?
Let’s put one simple fact on the table with regard to the ID theory.
The full theory of evolution, because of great spans in time and intervening causes, cannot be proved as fact; yet. Parts of evolution are undeniable and there are masses of logical and factual information to support it. Inevitably the evidence will be so overwhelming it will be accepted as fact by all. And that is an unstoppable, unpreventable fact of our existence.
Christianity, on the other hand, can neither be proved as fact nor, on the basis of what we now know, as fact (not necessarily evolution), be considered as logical and in many aspects, is known to be impossible.
On this basis alone, evolution is the most viable choice for the thinking world to adopt, which is why it eventually will be unanimously accepted throughout the world.
Now I know you don’t want me to clutter your site with a blow by blow response to all the quoted points (especially the antique ones), but since you quote them, let’s look at just a couple…..
Before I do, point 2, you really need to get an updated tree of life.
Point 5. Why would you quote that? You know in accordance with the Bible genealogy that Adam was created only a few tens of thousand of years ago so why would you talk in terms of the millions of years it takes for evolution.
I mean, that quote accepts dinosaurs appeared 10’s of millions of years before Adam and trilobites 10’s of millions of years before that, etc.
There are no fossils (nuclear or carbon dated) of man 10’s of millions of years old or even millions of years old yet man and beast were created on the same day.
Should you choose to say they were very long days, ignoring day was already separated from night as it is now, why don’t we get fossils of trees hundreds of millions of years older than the animals created the next “long day.”
Oh and, it appears, if the long day theory is correct, it wasn’t a very good advert for “intelligent design” because there were an enormous number of species that died out before Adam arrived. Not too good if more species were dying out than surviving, on the day they were created.
There is nothing to even remotely support the Genesis theory and it’s illogical..
Point 8., mutant fruit flies? That’s so old just remembering it, and memories of the days when I first read of it, bring tears to my eyes. Maybe you should look for some work done on tracking evolution via mutations in bacteria or even mice.
Point 9. I’m not sure about those drawings but my guess is they spring from the fossilized or physical skeletons found which are the most probable, or actual genetic, fit in our time line.
But then maybe I’m wrong and you’re right, God just kept getting that old “intelligent design” wrong and kept abandoning the project until he created the latest version of Adam.
But I fail to see in Genesis where it says God got the first few dozen Adams wrong and finally came up with one that pleased him.
Or maybe you think Cro-Magnon man with a brain approaching the size of ours was just another monkey that died out?
It’s funny how all these “monkeys” could either/and/or create fire and use tools but kept just dying out while other lesser species survived.
Oh, and here’s another one, some of these non-evolved monkeys even created clothes before Eve took the fruit in the garden of Eden. I find that really curious don’t you? I mean, it really does put a bit of a damper on Adam and Eve’s “free will” doesn’t it.
Kind of a little curious too how these human like creatures never have parallel findings, I mean, when did you last hear of the discovery of modern man fossilized 200,000 years ago?
Strange also there is no remains of (earths oldest man) Adam’s decendants to be found back in the days when we find primitive man and none of these primitive species overlap and always seem to improve in structure and form as they get closer to our time. Gee I must be missing something.
I apologize for mocking your beliefs (because they are weaker than mine) but you want to attack my factual understanding as myth to support your own.
This is just a miniscule sample of the argument that ID is not logically feasible; there are much tougher questions able to be asked.
Want a small example? If God left Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply and that’s all they did, how come we have different races physically adapted to the climate they live in? Did they suddenly have a red, black, yellow baby with other features like eyelids adapted to bright light or desert conditions or a larger nose adapted to thinner hotter air with no evolution? Or did I miss the part in the Bible where God kept coming back to re-ID people as they moved around the globe. And if it was “intelligent” design, why did it, and does it, keep needing to be modified and updated? Oh, and who’s doing it?
October 6th, 2006 at 6:05 am
To believe in evolution you must have faith without supporting evidence. The most destructive political and thought systems are built on an evolutionary foundation, as I’ve pointed out in numerous posts here.
Evolution is simply an anti-Christian worldview standing in direct opposition to Christianity.
why is it that you won’t allow me my faith and belief system? I’m not telling you what to believe, I’m telling you what I believe here, and the justification for it. I’m saying that Evolution is an antiquated out-dated theory that should be presented as a theory, with alternative theories presented alongside it. This approach would make more sense. What are the evolutionists afraid of?? It would seem as though the humanists are incredibly afraid of a theory like Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Why would that be if there’s so much ’science’ to back up evolution’s? The reason is, if you exmaine the science, particularly today’s science, evolution falls apart.
Macroevolution has no scientific basis, and the reason I put those questions up there is because those examples of evolutionary thought are still in the textbooks that are being used to teach our children today. Tell me why that is if there is so much scientific evidence to back up the theory?
“And be not conformed to this world; be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Romans 12:2.
That’s all I’m doing doing; not conforming with the humanistic destructive ‘worldview’ that you seem so determined to shove down my throat with sweeping generalizations that have no basis in logic, reason or fact. As I see it, Christianity is an ideology that you need to destroy in order to advance your anti-God, Anti-Christian agenda.
We are all free to believe whatever we want…why are you so determined to stop me from believing that which I’ve tried and tested for over 40 years?
The subtitle of Darwin’s Origin of Species was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? “Favored races”? hmmmm.
Darwin penned that in an animal context, extending it to human races was a small leap of logic. In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction Darwin made in the “Descent of Man”:
Racism was very prevalent among leading early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Britain’s Thomas Huxley, whose fierce advocacy of evolution won him the nickname “Darwin’s bulldog”, wrote:
Isn’t racism a form of bias?
High-school textbooks represent the worst of evolution education, rehearsing long-disproved evidences such as the peppered moth, vestigial organs, and mutated fruit flies. Only a small minority of Americans holds this “evolution only” view, and even most biology teachers suspect there’s more to the story. Unfortunately decades of “evolution only” teaching have produced a generation of teachers that only know evolution. Evidence contrary to evolution, and/or supportive of creation, has been censored. This brainwashed mentality has spilled over into legal education (producing evolution-supporting lawmakers, school board counsel, etc.) and into journalism school (yielding similar reporters, newscasters, etc.) each deeply believing that evolution is fact and creation is irrelevant to science. The opposition is quite strong and well entrenched.
Stalin, Marx, Carnegie, Hitler–those are just a bunch of dead guys (who all believed in Evolution). What has that got to do with today? We don’t have Stalins or Hitlers running America. The Constitution decentralizes power, making it very difficult to form that kind of dictatorship.
But it’s reasonable to say that we have experienced a moral decline in America over the last few decades. Certainly we have had recent improvements in this country–in, say, technology and some civil rights. But if we look at statistics such as drug use, teen suicide, and divorce, we see indications that the USA is declining. What happened at Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the ’50’s when nobody dreamed that weapons detectors would ever be needed at school entrances to protect schools from students.
So what’s cause America’s moral decline? Many would say, “Well, we’ve lost our respect for traditional values.” OK, where did “traditional values” come from? They came mostly from the Bible, which for centuries was Western culture’s central guiding document.
Why have we lost respect for the Bible? It was due, in part, to the widespread teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “fact”. As Huxley said, evolution removed God “from the sphere of rational discussion.” Once you’ve made God irrelevant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrelevant.
Religion traditionally played a strong role in American social life, and evolution tended to negate that role.
Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools before the ’60’s. In 1959, the 100th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of the Species”, the National Science Foundation, a government agency, granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. In the meantime, the Supreme court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional (after having been constitutional for more than a century and a half). From then on, students in public schools heard the evolutionist viewpoint ONLY–man is just an animal–exclusively.(1)
1. The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined, James Perloff, December, 2002, Refuge Books
October 6th, 2006 at 6:27 am
One comic pointed out:
Shifts can and do occur within types of animals. These changes, based on diverse, preexisting genetic information, are called by some “microevolution”. But this is not evidence for unlimited transformation (macroevolution).
The thesis “if we get a little change over a little time, then we get a lot of change over a lot of time” does not hold up. Suppose a girl, dreaming of Olympic glory, learned to ice skate. The first week, she finds she can jump to a height of one foot and land on her skates. The second week, she finds she can leap two feet. The third week, she can jump three feet. Can we conclude from this that after 100 weeks, she will be able to jump 100 feet? No, the law of gravity will strictly limit how high she can get. Likewise, animals are also restricted in how much change they can make–by the limits of their gene pool.
Luther Burbank, the famed American plant breeder, said:
Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol, noted in 2001:
To change a bacterium into a fish into a frog into a reptile into a mammal into a man, would require that each type of creature largely rewrite its gene pool and replace it with a new one. Evolutionists contend that “beneficial mutations” would allow an animal to exceed the boundaries of its genetic makeup. But as we have seen, mutations do not introduce new genetic information; the changes they cause involve informational losses.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:35 am
Evolution is not based on natural laws. (by Duane Gish, Ph.D.) Here is the pdf file.
The theory of evolution is not based on natural laws and is contrary to natural laws.
Consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.
Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman’s constant, Planck’s constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well.
According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.
What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.
The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. In Psalm 102:25_26 we read, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . .” The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes. At the time the Bible was written, most people believed that the universe had been here forever and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so, the universe had a beginning and is now wearing out and running down, just as modern science has determined. Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn’t run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, “In the beginning,” has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe.
Let us now consider theories on the origin of life. Here also the so-called evolutionary origin of life chemist is forced to utilize processes contrary to natural laws. In their experiments designed to produce even very simple molecules, they run into insuperable difficulties. For example, they must postulate some form of energy that would be available to convert simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed.
In all experiments employing these sources of raw energy, the rates of destruction vastly exceed the rates of formation. How then was Miller in his experiment1 able to obtain a small quantity of several amino acids and a few other products? He employed a trap. As tiny quantities of these substances were constantly being created and were immediately isolated in the trap, the gases he employed were circulating continuously through his raw energy, electrical discharges (simulating lightning). Without the trap, the products would have been destroyed by the electrical discharges at rates that vastly exceed the rates of formation, and no detectable quantities of the products would have formed. There could have been no traps available on the hypothetical primitive Earth. If these products were formed in the atmosphere they would be destroyed before they could reach the ocean. Furthermore, the ocean could not have acted as a trap since even there destructive processes would eliminate any surviving products.
In any case, a trap is fatal to the theory. The purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy source, but this brings the process to a complete halt. For amino acids to join together to make a protein, a large quantity of energy is required, but the very purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy. No energy, no further progress. Even as long ago as 1960 the physical chemist, D. E. Hull, taking into account the rates of destruction versus the rates of formation in these origin of life schemes, concluded that, “The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist [origin of life chemist], who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates” (Nature 186:693). Coacervates are mere blobs of disorganized material. Please note that Hull states that these so-called origin of life schemes are contrary to proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, which are essentially the same as natural laws.
To the evolutionist, history began with “In the beginning, hydrogen . . .” To the creationist, history began with “In the beginning, God . . .” Science and natural laws come down solidly in support for the fact of creation.
“Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Revelation 4:11).
Endnote
1. Miller, S. L. May 15, 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
* Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:52 am
In a discussion on Lou Dobb’s program on CNN between Dr. John Morris who is a creation scientist, Dr. Don Wells who is an intelligent design spokesman and a well-known evolutionist Dr. Michael Ruse, Dr. Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, much like you did. He said that it’s just as “proven” as 2+2=4. When challenged, he insisted the two statements are equivalently true. Is this so? If not, what is the difference?
This is an article called Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? (by John Morris, PHD) showing what the difference is, emphasis mine.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Cao,
I, mean yes, but what do you really think?
For the record I never (except this time) get into debates on Christianity and the beginning of life as Christian beliefs are so weak I am, as you put it, afraid to destroy your faith.
Whilst, to me, it is obvious there is no God, I believe (in people such as you) Christianity is a good thing. At least it does no harm most of the time.
(I am conscious of the fragility of your belief, which is why I’m not pursuing this aggressively.)
What gets me angry is that you have probably never come up with anything to assist your fellow man in any significant way and yet you decide to blog someone, a scientific giant responsible for many of the life saving medical discoveries of today, and place him as evil to serve a whim of your beliefs.
When you debate euthanasia you don’t mind saying doctors should keep providing the life prolonging treatment which leads all the way back to, basically the father of genetics, Darwin.
But when his theories conflict with yours it another story.
You can’t sit both sides of the fence.
(See my comment on your Euthanasia blog.)
Your comments….
You know, when you debate, it is perhaps best not to declare one theory as ludicrous to support an even more ludicrous theory.
For example, you don’t try to tell people, “Hey this ludicrous person believes an atom of hydrogen could be formed by chance, that’s so complex it’s just not possible so they can’t really believe it”.
Then say “Here’s something much more rational. You should believe me the most complex being (thing) that has, and ever will, exist came first.”
So you believe it was easier for God to come into existence than an atom of hydrogen?
I mean really didn’t you pick that up?
In debating it is also best not to say “This theory is rubbish because the science simply can’t be proved.”
Then say “Believe this, I know it is even less provable and has no logic and is contradicted by an overwhelming amount of current factual knowledge but it is, after all, supported by a document which is obviously based on the level science of several thousand years ago.
I guess the next point to highlight (rather than, going into information such as the drosophila from about 40 years ago) is to highlight one point for the record.
Evolution is fundamentally progression/change of a species through genetic mutation.
To the extent that that is what evolution is and, regardless of the ability or lack of ability to prove “the origins of life” it is provable, observable, demonstrable fact.
To tell me that you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t believe in the theoretical origin of life is the same as me saying, because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe the bible was ever written. I can go and buy a bible, you can get the factual proof of evolution.
To this extent you severely damage any argument you may have by summarizing “evolution doesn’t exist” when increasingly the world knows it does.
When experiments of the fruit fly were carried out very few (other than people like me) knew of it and it had very little news value, it was only in scientific journals. Now, even you, know about it. Imagine when today’s factual knowledge of evolution is widely spread to Christians who simply can’t refute it.
Can I point out here, it is because of the Christian concept of dogmatically prescribing to the word of the Bible, as written, that the faith, in the face of overwhelming scientific fact to the contrary, is dying out.
Let me highlight another point in connection with your comment about people like me not really believing in evolution but using it to undermine Christianity.
If the world was to agree to expunge all records and communication on the theory of evolution and at the same time, do the same with Christianity (except, I’ll give you a head start, a bible in every library in the world) by the end of one generation science would be looking at evolution again and be coming up with the same evolution theory, based on the existence of current genetic knowledge. The Bible would remain an obscure publication perhaps laughed at for its scientific inadequacies.
Evolution survives on the basis of factual proof, Christianity on word of mouth indoctrination.
I don’t believe in God, He’s irrelevant to me so the concept that I might somehow believe in a scientific theory because I wanted to prove He doesn’t exist is ludicrous to the point of being bizarre, perhaps even desperate.
Think for just a moment. If someone doesn’t believe in God what is the most likely reason? Belief in something else they believe is more logical.
When I was young I used to go to church every Sunday but my primary interest was in science. Guess which won out.
Back to evolution…..
I’ve put up a number of comments such as bones and fossilized remains of humans which vary dramatically from modern man.
You are clearly dragging out your old arguments and ignoring the aspects which don’t fit into your beliefs.
There is no point in engaging in these arguments as you are not scientifically inclined enough to keep “up to date” or include arguments from both sides as they currently stand.
Science looks at all aspects and accepts the most logical. Christianity looks at the Bible as being absolute truth and only associates itself with science it believes supports the Bible and ignores anything that fails to fit the Biblical version of history. Basically Christians are too scared to seek the truth.
I am keeping this (intentionally) simple to demonstrate I don’t need “powerful science” to defeat your arguments only simple day to day knowledge which is almost unavoidable.
I’ll ask again:
If Adam and Eve were true and made in the image of God, where do humans like Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man fit in? Where did they come from? (Note here: Do not use Piltdown man in your argument. This was basically a joke to defeat primitive science. You can’t fake fossils and it would not be economically viable to even attempt to fool modern “dating” techniques, even if it was possible.)
If they were all made in one day why do we have fossilized remains dating back to around 200 million years before man and why, on the “first day of man”, were there so many types of man?
Why was there no note in the Bible regarding God making masses of species extinct before Adam arrived?
Why was it easier for God to “come about” than an atom of hydrogen? (Don’t say He was always there or I’ll say the same about the atom.)
We know that every year a new strain of flu comes along. How? God specifically creates it to injure and kill people?
Scientists are desperately seeking a vaccine for the bird flu HN15 virus before it mutates to attack humans. I take it you believe they are wasting their time and should stop their research as only God will decide if its fun to start a pandemic?
Oh, and perhaps you should do an open letter to the scientists telling them not to worry, as evolution doesn’t exist, the virus won’t mutate and evolve into a life threatening species to humans. (I some how doubt they’ll believe you…. But, then again, they may do if they only believe in evolution to undermine Christians.)
And the current forms of bacteria are getting stronger and defeating our anti-biotics faster than we can upgrade them. So you think we should stop the research as it’s just God having a little game with us?
The fact is evolution is the best fit for the world, including Christians…. For example
Genesis (Bible).
A God looking like a man grabbed some dirt, breathed into it and it walked off as a human.
Genesis (Evolution).
Darwin was a forward thinker, his only fault was that he erred in his perception of the origin of life.
God knew man would need to evolve and need to have the opportunity to evolve into the best he could be.
He did not create man in a random and inconsequential way, He made him uniquely complex in order to serve the need to evolve.
God placed a primitive creature on the earth, man (as God was everything and created everything, everything was “in His image”, protons, neutrons, electrons, but man was the closest creation to His own physical image).
Man was given a choice to evolve with a focus on God’s wish, love for his fellow man, which would allow him to focus on trials God would be present (such as poisons, germs, heat, cold) and defeat them. The alternative would be to focus on “sin” which would make him susceptible to ever more increasing threats.
Through Gods skillfully crafted form, every man’s uniqueness would live forever through his progeny (we now call this genetics).
Whilst I believe neither to be true, one is logical and the other is based on an ancient lack of scientific knowledge making is “quaint”, or more to the point, comical.
Your theory is impossible and fails to explain such things as Cro-Magnon man whereas I simply manipulated evolution into a plausible Bible fit.
What’s really funny is that you would instantly dismiss this without explanation or thought and stick with what you’ve been told by your peers, whereas a scientist would think “There’s a Biblical possibility. Naturally God would have to provide a simplified explanation in ancient times and anticipate we would discover the logical truth in time.”
To summarise:
There is no point in providing screeds of rambling scientific dialogue (particularly when you are probably not up to a true scientific debate at the level you are quoting) and ignoring the simple day to day arguments.
I have stated: It currently is, and may always be, impossible to prove the origins of matter and the true, scientific origin of biological life. We know we currently can’t do it so there is absolutely no point in stating the obvious in an argument to support your beliefs.
You’re saying your beliefs are correct and mine are wrong. Your starting point should therefore be, in light of current factual and scientific knowledge, why? Why are you correct?
Prove your theory by providing “Bible fit” logical answers to the simple comments made.
Direct me to a current, generally accepted (by the science community at large), document that states the theory of evolution of biological matter via genetic mutation is unfounded. (Best place to include it would be with your response to my HN15 virus strain comment.)
(Note: If you go as far as to accept “microevolution” you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolution”.
The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.
Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?
Probably your best response is to not attempt to debate the impossible but to merely state:
“God is. I believe I have no reason to question His methods or teachings. All answers will be revealed to me when He believes the time is appropriate. In the mean time you have your beliefs which I discount as being incorrect in that they disagree with what I know to be the truth.” (“It’s an oldie but a goodie” for this type of situation.)
Then you’ll have no further need to respond and I will know the truth so we’ll both be happy.
Oh, but you should have the integrity to remove all the blog or retain all the blog.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Cao,
I, mean yes, but what do you really think?
For the record I never (except this time) get into debates on Christianity and the beginning of life as Christian beliefs are so weak I am, as you put it, afraid to destroy your faith.
Whilst, to me, it is obvious there is no God, I believe (in people such as you) Christianity is a good thing. At least it does no harm most of the time.
(I am conscious of the fragility of your belief, which is why I’m not pursuing this aggressively.)
What gets me angry is that you have probably never come up with anything to assist your fellow man in any significant way and yet you decide to blog someone, a scientific giant responsible for many of the life saving medical discoveries of today, and place him as evil to serve a whim of your beliefs.
When you debate euthanasia you don’t mind saying doctors should keep providing the life prolonging treatment which leads all the way back to, basically the father of genetics, Darwin.
But when his theories conflict with yours it another story.
You can’t sit both sides of the fence.
(See my comment on your Euthanasia blog.)
Your comments….
You know, when you debate, it is perhaps best not to declare one theory as ludicrous to support an even more ludicrous theory.
For example, you don’t try to tell people, “Hey this ludicrous person believes an atom of hydrogen could be formed by chance, that’s so complex it’s just not possible so they can’t really believe it”.
Then say “Here’s something much more rational. You should believe me the most complex being (thing) that has, and ever will, exist came first.”
So you believe it was easier for God to come into existence than an atom of hydrogen?
I mean really didn’t you pick that up?
In debating it is also best not to say “This theory is rubbish because the science simply can’t be proved.”
Then say “Believe this, I know it is even less provable and has no logic and is contradicted by an overwhelming amount of current factual knowledge but it is, after all, supported by a document which is obviously based on the level science of several thousand years ago.
I guess the next point to highlight (rather than, going into information such as the drosophila from about 40 years ago) is to highlight one point for the record.
Evolution is fundamentally progression/change of a species through genetic mutation.
To the extent that that is what evolution is and, regardless of the ability or lack of ability to prove “the origins of life” it is provable, observable, demonstrable fact.
To tell me that you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t believe in the theoretical origin of life is the same as me saying, because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe the bible was ever written. I can go and buy a bible, you can get the factual proof of evolution.
To this extent you severely damage any argument you may have by summarizing “evolution doesn’t exist” when increasingly the world knows it does.
When experiments of the fruit fly were carried out very few (other than people like me) knew of it and it had very little news value, it was only in scientific journals. Now, even you, know about it. Imagine when today’s factual knowledge of evolution is widely spread to Christians who simply can’t refute it.
Can I point out here, it is because of the Christian concept of dogmatically prescribing to the word of the Bible, as written, that the faith, in the face of overwhelming scientific fact to the contrary, is dying out.
Let me highlight another point in connection with your comment about people like me not really believing in evolution but using it to undermine Christianity.
If the world was to agree to expunge all records and communication on the theory of evolution and at the same time, do the same with Christianity (except, I’ll give you a head start, a bible in every library in the world) by the end of one generation science would be looking at evolution again and be coming up with the same evolution theory, based on the existence of current genetic knowledge. The Bible would remain an obscure publication perhaps laughed at for its scientific inadequacies.
Evolution survives on the basis of factual proof, Christianity on word of mouth indoctrination.
I don’t believe in God, He’s irrelevant to me so the concept that I might somehow believe in a scientific theory because I wanted to prove He doesn’t exist is ludicrous to the point of being bizarre, perhaps even desperate.
Think for just a moment. If someone doesn’t believe in God what is the most likely reason? Belief in something else they believe is more logical.
When I was young I used to go to church every Sunday but my primary interest was in science. Guess which won out.
Back to evolution…..
I’ve put up a number of comments such as bones and fossilized remains of humans which vary dramatically from modern man.
You are clearly dragging out your old arguments and ignoring the aspects which don’t fit into your beliefs.
There is no point in engaging in these arguments as you are not scientifically inclined enough to keep “up to date” or include arguments from both sides as they currently stand.
Science looks at all aspects and accepts the most logical. Christianity looks at the Bible as being absolute truth and only associates itself with science it believes supports the Bible and ignores anything that fails to fit the Biblical version of history. Basically Christians are too scared to seek the truth.
I am keeping this (intentionally) simple to demonstrate I don’t need “powerful science” to defeat your arguments only simple day to day knowledge which is almost unavoidable.
I’ll ask again:
If Adam and Eve were true and made in the image of God, where do humans like Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man fit in? Where did they come from? (Note here: Do not use Piltdown man in your argument. This was basically a joke to defeat primitive science. You can’t fake fossils and it would not be economically viable to even attempt to fool modern “dating” techniques, even if it was possible.)
If they were all made in one day why do we have fossilized remains dating back to around 200 million years before man and why, on the “first day of man”, were there so many types of man?
Why was there no note in the Bible regarding God making masses of species extinct before Adam arrived?
Why was it easier for God to “come about” than an atom of hydrogen? (Don’t say He was always there or I’ll say the same about the atom.)
We know that every year a new strain of flu comes along. How? God specifically creates it to injure and kill people?
Scientists are desperately seeking a vaccine for the bird flu HN15 virus before it mutates to attack humans. I take it you believe they are wasting their time and should stop their research as only God will decide if its fun to start a pandemic?
Oh, and perhaps you should do an open letter to the scientists telling them not to worry, as evolution doesn’t exist, the virus won’t mutate and evolve into a life threatening species to humans. (I some how doubt they’ll believe you…. But, then again, they may do if they only believe in evolution to undermine Christians.)
And the current forms of bacteria are getting stronger and defeating our anti-biotics faster than we can upgrade them. So you think we should stop the research as it’s just God having a little game with us?
The fact is evolution is the best fit for the world, including Christians…. For example
Genesis (Bible).
A God looking like a man grabbed some dirt, breathed into it and it walked off as a human.
Genesis (Evolution).
Darwin was a forward thinker, his only fault was that he erred in his perception of the origin of life.
God knew man would need to evolve and need to have the opportunity to evolve into the best he could be.
He did not create man in a random and inconsequential way, He made him uniquely complex in order to serve the need to evolve.
God placed a primitive creature on the earth, man (as God was everything and created everything, everything was “in His image”, protons, neutrons, electrons, but man was the closest creation to His own physical image).
Man was given a choice to evolve with a focus on God’s wish, love for his fellow man, which would allow him to focus on trials God would be present (such as poisons, germs, heat, cold) and defeat them. The alternative would be to focus on “sin” which would make him susceptible to ever more increasing threats.
Through Gods skillfully crafted form, every man’s uniqueness would live forever through his progeny (we now call this genetics).
Whilst I believe neither to be true, one is logical and the other is based on an ancient lack of scientific knowledge making is “quaint”, or more to the point, comical.
Your theory is impossible and fails to explain such things as Cro-Magnon man whereas I simply manipulated evolution into a plausible Bible fit.
What’s really funny is that you would instantly dismiss this without explanation or thought and stick with what you’ve been told by your peers, whereas a scientist would think “There’s a Biblical possibility. Naturally God would have to provide a simplified explanation in ancient times and anticipate we would discover the logical truth in time.”
To summarise:
There is no point in providing screeds of rambling scientific dialogue (particularly when you are probably not up to a true scientific debate at the level you are quoting) and ignoring the simple day to day arguments.
I have stated: It currently is, and may always be, impossible to prove the origins of matter and the true, scientific origin of biological life. We know we currently can’t do it so there is absolutely no point in stating the obvious in an argument to support your beliefs.
You’re saying your beliefs are correct and mine are wrong. Your starting point should therefore be, in light of current factual and scientific knowledge, why? Why are you correct?
Prove your theory by providing “Bible fit” logical answers to the simple comments made.
Direct me to a current, generally accepted (by the science community at large), document that states the theory of evolution of biological matter via genetic mutation is unfounded. (Best place to include it would be with your response to my HN15 virus strain comment.)
(Note: If you go as far as to accept “microevolution” you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolution”.
The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.
Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?
Probably your best response is to not attempt to debate the impossible but to merely state:
“God is. I believe I have no reason to question His methods or teachings. All answers will be revealed to me when He believes the time is appropriate. In the mean time you have your beliefs which I discount as being incorrect in that they disagree with what I know to be the truth.” (“It’s an oldie but a goodie” for this type of situation.)
Then you’ll have no further need to respond and I will know the truth so we’ll both be happy.
Oh, but you should have the integrity to remove all the blog or retain all the blog.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:45 am
Cao,
Your point 12 was an excellent choice.
(But you shouldn’t use a genetics amateurs to explain genetics.)
You want to play games with jumping 1ft one week and 2 the next etc?
A man makes a paper plane and throws it, it flies. Man can’t make a jumbo jet because it has millions of parts and it’s a million times as big. Just because one situation has limitations doesn’t mean all situations have the same number of limitations. For example I could say macroevolution will end before every man becomes a god. That doesn’t mean its impossible to evolve to the current level and beyond due to a limitation theory.
For the record a flea has a need to jump 100 flea feet high and does. Humans have the bio-mechanical components to do so also, and if there was a real need, natural evolution would see your skater jump 100 feet.
Okay, so that logic doesn’t work…..
Next……
Princess and a frog?……
First there was 1 cell, mad, then it split and became multiple cells, ludicrous, then that became a primitive invertebrate, insane, then it became a vertebrate, absolute moron, then it became a complex vertebrate, how do these idiots keep coming up with these concepts?
Now take that ludicrous proposition and tell me, based on the factual time line data of physical archeological findings, the order in which life on earth has been discovered so far. Feel free to point me to the parallel single cell, multi-cell invertebrate and vertebrate discoveries at the same dig with the same age which leads you to the conclusion macroevolution is a joke, not feasible or not logical. Or is it possible to walk up to a cliff and see the essence of the Darwin timeline?
Whilst you’re on the subject, again, explain why there is a set of discovered humans (each more advanced than the one before) based on age of the discovery.
Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?
Now to your botanist…..
I mean, really, where do you get these quotes? It seems to me like you’ve gone to the web and searched for “Idiot’s+evolution”
Oh dear……
The concept of a peach not being able to be bigger or smaller? Maybe he’s just not skilled enough.
On the other hand what has a plants biological structure, that tells it there is no point in being so large it couldn’t hang on the tree or so small its seed would be endangered so it refuses to genetically mutate, got to do with macroevolution?
What kind of moron would try to get a rose to bloom all year knowing the amount of energy that a plant requires to bloom all year it would so deprive the plant of resources it would die. Not to mention the fact that, even if the botanist attempting to change the plant is an idiot, the rose knows it’s no point in creating seeds at a time when they would simply fall to the ground and die.
What these examples should highlight to anyone is that even idiots intervening can’t override macroevolution
However If you go as far as to accept “microevolution” you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolution”.
And it appears you have accepted microevolution
The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.
So to a Christian, in Darwin’s day, it was all a totally ridiculous concept that couldn’t possibly happen. Now part has been proved, “Oh well, yes of course, THAT PART is correct, it’s just the bit you can’t prove yet that’s wrong……”
And what happens each time a new part is proved as fact? What? That becomes “obvious” until you simply have no way out?)
So, the comment regarding bacteria……
I guess it wouldn’t embarrass you if I highlighted the level of ability to monitor genetic modification in the mid 1800’s or perhaps highlight to you the number of bacteria there are in the world. Even today they’d have trouble monitoring the bacteria in your gut.
Here’s a quote you can freely use:
Othello Orson October, 2006 stated: “In over 150 years of bacterial research there is no evidence that a proportion of bacteria have not undergone macroevolution.”
And that I can state (without any ability of another person to contradict) is at least as accurate a fact as the fact you quoted.
(Note here: Major changes in one bacteria leading to a different species would not wipe out the original species (remember mutation only occurs if the conditions seem appropriate: you can use black, white, red, yellow humans as an example) therefore the existence of bacteria existing today [in its thousands or millions of forms] is irrelevant to macroevolution.)
Small lesson here:
Things mutate in order to adapt to their needs and progress, not for the fun of it (which is incidentally why a birds beak may grow larger in a drought and then return to normal when the weather reverts).
Now it’s time to be sarcastic…..
What a dumb theory that a single cell could possibly have the genetic material to develop into something as complex as a modern man. How stupid is that?!!!
In fact, if something as stupid as that was true, living organisms wouldn’t come into existence complete. They’d start from a single cell!!! Try to imagine that concept!!!
Oh, wait a minute, they do start as a single cell? Well, that doesn’t help the argument. Wish I hadn’t thought of that one.
Your celebrated “bacteria man” (I don’t store the names of people, in my view, are idiots) advised that bacteria can mutate every few hours.
We know that, depending on complexity, organisms can change in hours, days weeks years.
Even complex living organisms such as, short lived, mammals can be genetically manipulated over a few generations over a period of months.
But lets say, like the new strain of flu each year, it takes 1 year to mutate and micro-evolve (noting bacteria can do it in a few hours).
Take one original cell and evolve it.
We know life has been on earth for around 3.5 billion years based on early Archaean fossils.
We also now have a formal declaration of 19,599 coding genes in the human genome (we won’t discuss why God would include large masses of “junk DNA” in the human genome but every Christian knows it’s not a result of macro-evolution disgarding the bits not needed).
So, at only one mutation per year, we are saying that there would be at least 3,500,000,000 mutations to a maximum of 19,599 genes in the original cell to get to man.
By all means go and ask any geneticist if they believe 3,500,000,000 mutations would lead to micro-evolutionary or macro-evolutionary changes. (Since you like numbers that’s more than one change to every one of the human roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs.)
When considering this note:
We have examples of tools made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago so although this species was extremely primitive, it was not a monkey.
We have tools up to 2.2 million years ago.
“Human” created fire 1.2 million years ago.
Neanderthal man had a tiny brain but buried people, used tools and han clothes around 200,000 years ago. Clearly not a monkey (not and Adam either).
Neanderthal man’s DNA (with anomalies) is close enough to modern man to view him as close to (but not) a direct descendant. Nonetheless his larynx bone was identical to modern man putting him an a category that could speak, clearly not an animal.
The point here is, if the world could progress from nearly, but definitely not, animal around 2 million years, what about 3,500 million years and noting the need for much less dramatic change in the early stages?
Primitive man started finger painting on walls and was lucky to live around 20 years, 17,000 years ago. Today he is close to being able to flying to Mars and back and is approaching an average life expectancy of 80 years. Any idea the rate of genetic progress that is? Compared with 3.5 billion years?
That said…..
..….Macroevolution possible?
A virtual absolute certainty.
Seen the latest on the “laboratory formation” of the beginnings of life?
Time is running out for the Creationist theory which will probably be defunct within 20 years.
What then?
October 10th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Ahhh, this is very amusing. I provide links, facts and evidence, you present leftist hyperbole. What a compelling argument. You want me quote a widely acceptable source for my information, yet you are quick to discount my sources as being ‘biased’.
How about Mr. Martin A. Estrin who has an M.A. in Journalism. That might float your boat. Let’s get to the scientific theory, as he points out below instead of the evolutionary rhetoric in this piece “Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?”.
But as John Ray has often said, facts never bother leftists. What other doctrines are you willing to ignore?
Well we know the answer to that last question, leftists stress the rights of murderers, the horror of the death penalty, homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’, etc.
I notice how you don’t debate any of this, you merely point to the sources as ‘inaccurate’, discounting the relevancy.
The lack of any real case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. That you can’t seem to find any way to debate, based on scientific fact.
If Evolution were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. Please share them with me, since surely they must exist.
What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
There’s just one ‘widely accepted expert’–he’s an evolutionist. I’m quoting one of your own experts that discounts the theory at least in part, because if this thing really exists, we should be able to find some evidence of it. Even you should be able to see the simple unalterable reasoning in that statement.
Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.
But modern evolutionists, to resolve this “dilemma”, assert that fish’s genes must have mutated into human genes over eons–mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur only very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to the environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.
But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has a book out called “Not by Chance: Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution“. In it, he writes:
Mutations DELETE information from the genetic code. They NEVER create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Down’s syndrome. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Hemophilia. And over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.
Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work in developing penicillin, knew much about bacteria and antibiolics. Dr. Chain stated:
Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates: clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc., but there are no fossils demonstrating how these creatures evolved, or that they developed from a common ancestor. (For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion”). The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard acknowledged that “our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature tha might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas (animals).” In other words, the bottom of Darwin’s great “tree of life” is merely a speculation unsupported by fossil evidence.
Darwin stated that
He admitted these creatures’ fossils had not been found in his day, but hoped future excavations would turn them up.
They haven’t.
October 10th, 2006 at 5:59 am
And I’m just going to lay it out on the line for you without mincing any words now. By the way, time seems to always be an issue for me, and instead of sitting there pondering what to write, I just find the experts to speak for me, and give them credit. You will find my comments sometimes even have footnotes in them, crediting the sources. I don’t find your comments very fact-based.
American society — especially our educational system — is dominated by evolutionary humanism.
The harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches and seminaries.
This rebellion against God and His laws stems from unbelieving scientists and educators undermining the foundational truth of creation.
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth’s crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth’s fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of “negative” changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator’s purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
From ICR FAQ page.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:38 am
Cao,
My blog didn’t go on here a couple of days ago so I tested it on another page
Christianity and Euthanasia blog 1401. Should be deleted.
I did however add a blog to that page you won’t like, but that’s blogging.
October 11th, 2006 at 3:46 am
I don’t understand what you’re saying here, but that’s blogging, I guess.
If you have a blog, I don’t have the url, and frankly, considering what you’ve had to say thus far, I don’t especially care to read it.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:12 am
I wasn’t talking about my blog url, it’s on your blog page:
Christianity and Euthanasia blog 1401
http://caosblog.com/1401
And my last blog didn’t go up even though re-sending it today says it’s a duplicate.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
You know, I think it’s time to close this thread.
By the way, the verbiage you’re using is incorrect and I don’t have enough time to ask for clarification and to transcribe it into a sentient thought.
It was called “Christians and Euthanasia”. But I won’t split hairs,