Keith Devens .com

so is it possible that god created evolution? does it have to be either science or religion, and not the two combined?

Sure, it's logically possible that some God could have constantly performed miracles and made evolution happen... but that's kind of the point, that to believe in evolution you have to believe in it despite the lack of evidence for it and all the evidence to the contrary.

Of course, it's not logically possible that the Judeo/Christian God worked his creation through evolution because evolution contradicts the Bible.

What are you talking about Keith? There is a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. Speciation can be induced in bacteria through chemical exposure. Humans have dramatically affected canine genetics just within the last few hundred years. Farmers have exploited genetics to create an amazing variety of foods. The fossil record provides a wealth of support for evolution. Genetics research supports the theory.

What exactly is there to celebrate about two thirds of our population being willfully ignorant about science?

Seriously, do some reading. Talk to a biologist at your school. There is some room to say that there are multiple theories of evolution, and that scientific evidence may support a number of them. However, creationism isn't even a theory in the scientific sense of the word. To paraphrase someone else, it's not testable, it's not falsifiable, it's not predictive. It's not a theory.

One of the problems you get into when discussing "evolution" is that people use the word "evolution" to mean many different things. I think people often extrapolate from the fact that some of what's called "evolution" is true to that everything that's called "evolution" is true. Even the scientific community is often confused about the different types of evolution. In fact, Darwin himself wasn't aware of the necessary distinctions that have to be made.

Some kinds of evolution I believe in and some I don't. Previously, I'd sometimes use the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to distinguish between the different kinds I want to talk about. Unfortunately, the way I used the terms isn't how they're normally used, so I have to stop that. So, here are the terms I'll use:

• "selective evolution": This refers to genetic variation that gets selected through successive generations. In short, this is just genetics, and this what natural selection has to do with. Importantly, this kind of evolution involves no mutation. This includes the examples you bring up such as dog breeding and covers the selective breeding of everything from farm animals to plants. This is the type of evolution you're referring to when you talk about "survival of the fittest".
• "mutative evolution": This type of evolution involves mutation of existing genetic information. This covers things like color-blindness, bacterial resistance to drugs, sickle-cell anemia, etc.
• "creative evolution": This is the kind of evolution that claims to create new features or structures of an organism that didn't exist before, and requires an increase in genetic information. This covers the "goo to you", or "monkey to man" evolution, and includes such things as the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled, prokaryote cells from eukaryote, the origin of the cell, and the very creation of life from non-living matter.

With these terms defined I can explain which types of evolution I believe in and which I don't. I assent to the first two but deny the third.

I'll respond to the rest of your comment in a bit.

Keith,
Please answer this: If you don’t believe in the theory of evolution, why would you get a flu shot? Since the theory of evolution is integral to the development of the annual shot (and even the premise that you would need one, for example http://www.jphpk.gov.my/Agronomi/bird_flu13.htm ), your beliefs should require that you eschew the shot - even in years that it is available.
Best regards,
Terri
www.ethicalfocus.org

Ok, I'll respond to a few things.

Farmers have exploited genetics to create an amazing variety of foods.

Note that as I mentioned above I'm not denying anything about genetics. But it's important for you to realize that if intelligent humans are able to modify existing genetic information it provides no support to the theory of evolution, which has to produce life and complexity through random processes from nothing but atoms.

The fossil record provides a wealth of support for evolution.

Actually, it doesn't. It actually shows the opposite of what you'd expect to find if creative evolution was true. Rather than very gradual differences at different strata of the fossil record you have very sharp breaks in the fossil record showing no transitions. I'd like to point out that there is sharp divergence on this issue within the evolutionary community. Half of evolutionists cite the gradual changes in the fossil record as evidence for evolution (those who follow Dawkins) and the other half (those who follow Gould) point out that the fossil record doesn't show gradual changes at all. This is what the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" is about. Because of the absence of evidence for gradual change in the fossil record, it states that long periods of genetic stability are "punctuated" by very rapid explosive bouts of creative evolution. As a skeptic, I look at this as their way of explaining why they don't have evidence for their theory -- it happens too fast for us to have a record of it.

However, creationism isn't even a theory in the scientific sense of the word. To paraphrase someone else, it's not testable, it's not falsifiable, it's not predictive. It's not a theory.

I agree. Though, creative evolution isn't scientific either. In short, it's a theory of origins, no different in principle than the creation story of Genesis is. One has a creator, while the other says life spontaneously arose somehow in the absence of a creator. Believing in creative evolution is as much of a faith commitment as believing in Creation is. I consider it to be the atheist's "creation story".

I'd like to point out that even the types of evolution I agree with I don't think are strictly scientific. For instance, "natural selection" is more of a useful description of what happens than a scientific theory. "Survival of the fittest" states that the fittest animals in a given environment survive. But, how do you know which animals are the fittest? Well, they're the ones that survive. It's defined tautologically.

Anyway, if you'd like to continue the discussion in light of my clarification of terms and above explanation please do.

If you don’t believe in the theory of evolution, why would you get a flu shot? Since the theory of evolution is integral to the development of the annual shot... your beliefs should require that you eschew the shot - even in years that it is available.

Hi Terri, I've gone into what I do and don't believe about evolution above... you probably posted your comment before seeing mine. If you still think your criticism holds, please re-assert it and explain why you think it is a valid criticism of my position.

Keith,
Thanks for reviewing some of your general criticisms regarding evolution.
Two major points and three minor:
1. Your general checklist of criticisms of the theory did not address my specific question. Perhaps you consider it simplistic, and in fact it is – how do you reconcile enjoying the fruits of inventions that depend on, in fact derive directly from and would have been impossible to invent without, the theory of evolution. You can believe Gould (may he rest in peace) or Dawkins, but either flavor advances science. And you enjoy its benefits. How do you deal with that incongruity? Simplistic as it is, I think the flu shot is a reasonable example.
2. Now I’d like to address with some specificity your three points:
a. The topic is ‘Natural Selection’. The fact that human-controlled breeding does not necessitate it is a straw-man argument.
b. You say “long periods of genetic stability are "punctuated" by very rapid explosive bouts of creative evolution. As a skeptic, I look at this as their way of explaining why they don't have evidence for their theory -- it happens too fast for us to have a record of it.“ Can the mountain of interlocking evidence that substantiates evolution be dismissed because of...…I’m not sure of what? I don’t see a cohesive argument here. Punctuated equilibrium seems a reasonable scientific explanation. When the Big Bang didn’t quite hold together, the Inflation Model was added. Takes some getting used to, but it seems to hold together, anticipate hypothesis that prove true, all the stuff you want out of a real scientific theory.
c. Evolution is a scientific theory, not just an origin myth. And to really drive home my point, no origin myth ever created a flu shot.
Thanks for taking the time to deal with my last question.
Rgds,
Terri Karp
www.ethicalfocus.org

Your general checklist of criticisms of the theory did not address my specific question.

Indeed, they weren't written with your criticism in mind. Like I said, you wrote your comment before you saw mine, so I wanted to know if you thought your criticism still applied before I responded.

how do you reconcile enjoying the fruits of inventions that depend on, in fact derive directly from and would have been impossible to invent without, the theory of evolution... How do you deal with that incongruity?

I don't see why flu shots depend on creative evolution.

The fact that human-controlled breeding does not necessitate it is a straw-man argument.

I don't understand what you mean. I think you're referring to my response to Andrew's comment about genetically modified foods. My point was a philosophical one, that establishing an intelligent human's ability to change DNA in a certain way doesn't establish the ability of random processes to accomplish the same. It's not a major point, it's just an error in his reasoning I wanted to point out so he wouldn't make the same type of mistake in the future.

Can the mountain of interlocking evidence that substantiates evolution be dismissed because of...…I’m not sure of what?

I don't see what I'm dismissing. I obviously don't see the "mountain of interlocking evidence"... maybe you can elaborate.

Punctuated equilibrium seems a reasonable scientific explanation.

Given the assumption of creative evolution, punctuated equilibrium is a reasonable explanation of why we don't find evidence of evolution in the fossil record. But it doesn't do anything to establish the truth of creative evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not just an origin myth.

You can claim that, but it doesn't make it true. You claim that life came about from non-living matter. You claim that DNA came about spontaneously, that the cell arose from... I don't know what... that DNA and the complexity of the cell came about miraculously "by chance" through random processes. All of this is asserted without any evidence based on your underlying philosophical comittment to a naturalistic theory of origins.

Keith, what you call "creative evolution", is really just a combination of selective and mutative evolution, stretched out on a larger scale. Just within the field of computer science, look up emergent behavior or cellular automata, and you'll find ample support for the ability for complex features and behavior to arise out of simple systems. Especially given a time scale of billions of years.

it's important for you to realize that if intelligent humans are able to modify existing genetic information it provides no support to the theory of evolution, which has to produce life and complexity through random processes from nothing but atoms.

I wasn't even referring to direct genetic modification, which is a relatively recent innovation. Rather, things like American Indians using natural selection to turn corn producing 1" ears into corn producing 10" ears. All they did was tweak the parameters of natural selection and let evolution do its thing.

Rather than very gradual differences at different strata of the fossil record you have very sharp breaks in the fossil record showing no transitions.

I'd suggest to those dissenting evolutionists to take a few courses in geology. The time difference between individual beds of rock can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Of course there are going to be gaps in the fossil record.

Though, creative evolution isn't scientific either.

I've already stated its the same thing as selective and mutative evolution.

Believing in creative evolution is as much of a faith commitment as believing in Creation is.

No, because there is ample evidence in favor of evolution, and none against.

I'd like to point out that even the types of evolution I agree with I don't think are strictly scientific. For instance, "natural selection" is more of a useful description of what happens than a scientific theory

Fine. You've just described them as facts, which doesn't serve to make them any less scientific.

My point was a philosophical one, that establishing an intelligent human's ability to change DNA in a certain way doesn't establish the ability of random processes to accomplish the same. It's not a major point, it's just an error in his reasoning I wanted to point out so he wouldn't make the same type of mistake in the future.

I obviously wasn't precise enough. See my above clarification.

I don't see what I'm dismissing. I obviously don't see the "mountain of interlocking evidence"... maybe you can elaborate.

Paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, geology... the more we learn, the more support there is for evolution. Humans share genetics with birds, apes, whales, rats, and every other organism. How that fails to support common ancestry is beyond me.

Even if I were to take your strawman of creative evolution at face value, and if we were to find some species which experienced speciation within a compact timeframe, all that would imply is the existence of some natural process to enable rapid speciation. Not of some supernatural hand in the genepool directly manipulating DNA.

Furthermore, to go back to the original poll, the question was:

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is –  [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?

That 35% of the US population doesn't think evolution has been well-supported by evidence, when everything from their flu shots to corn to the family dog all provide evidence supporting evolution, represents a mind-boggling ignorance of science. If the Bible had said matter cannot be turned into energy, would these same people be arguing that nuclear weapons couldn't exist, despite the evidence to the contrary? ("Oh, that explosion could be generated with conventional weapons. I demand to actually see the matter turning into energy before I can verify your theory of E=MC^2.")[1]

[1] Yes, a strawman argument, and a ridiculous one at that. But this is what creationists sound like to scientists.

what you call "creative evolution", is really just a combination of selective and mutative evolution, stretched out on a larger scale.

Yes, that's correct, but there's more. Both selective evolution and mutative evolution operate on existing genetic information and produce no new information. Creative evolution (life produced from non-life, men ultimately coming from bacteria, DNA, RNA, the cell, etc. arising from nothing) arising from repeated mutations has never been established. That's the logical jump that evolutionists make, and it's unjustified.

Just within the field of computer science, look up emergent behavior or cellular automata, and you'll find ample support for the ability for complex features and behavior to arise out of simple systems.

I'm familiar with Steven Wolfram's work. The type of complexity produced by cellular automata is not the same kind of complexity as the complexity in a living organism. When you run cellular automata sometimes you get complexity in terms of apparent randomness, and sometimes you get examples of simple recursive mathematical structures (I'm thinking of "rule 90", which produces Sierpinski's triangle). Wolfram himself thinks that his results have some relation to evolution. He hasn't shown this.

I wasn't even referring to direct genetic modification, which is a relatively recent innovation. Rather, things like American Indians using natural selection to turn corn producing 1" ears into corn producing 10" ears. All they did was tweak the parameters of natural selection and let evolution do its thing.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about GM foods, not just selective breeding. Like I said, selective evolution like this is uncontroversial.

I'd suggest to those dissenting evolutionists to take a few courses in geology. The time difference between individual beds of rock can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Of course there are going to be gaps in the fossil record.

Good, I'm glad you realize that the fossil record doesn't support gradual evolution. Darwin would be very surprised by that result, as he expected it would vindicate him. As an aside, when you read Darwin he clearly makes the same logical leap that I've been pointing out... he believed that "evolution by natural selection" can create new things, when natural selection itself only selects from existing genetic information. Darwin had somewhat of an excuse... he wasn't aware of mutations and DNA and the complexity of the cell. Scientists today don't have an excuse.

No, because there is ample evidence in favor of evolution, and none against.

You can baldly assert that there are examples of creative evolution, but that doesn't make it true. Have we ever observed life spontaneously arising from non-life (simple amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment don't count), or a single-celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism? We haven't. Creative evolution has never been observed, is not testable, is not repeatable, you can't make predictions of what creative evolution will produce, etc. It's not a scientific hypothesis, but a theory of origins.

Fine. You've just described them as facts, which doesn't serve to make them any less scientific.

Look, the very hypothesis of natural selection is tautological. If you want to call tautologies scientific, be my guest.

the more we learn, the more support there is for evolution

Heh, you can't just cite fields of scientific inquiry and say "See! These support creative evolution!" You have data, and you have interpretations of data. Everything I see convinces me more and more that evolution is impossible and that we're a creation of God. We both look at the same facts but have different interpretations of the same data.

Humans share genetics with birds, apes, whales, rats, and every other organism. How that fails to support common ancestry is beyond me.

And my computer shares some features with my microwave. They both have transistors, etc. Similarity does not logically establish that one is an ancestor or a descendant of another (or a cousin, etc.). Like I pointed out, that's your interpretation of the data, but it doesn't logically follow.

...if we were to find some species which experienced speciation within a compact timeframe...

I saw this great interview with Richard Dawkins a while ago... I can probably obtain a digital copy of it if you're interested. He was asked a simple question, something along the lines of "Can you give any examples of a mutation that has produced an increase in genetic information". He literally sat there mumbling and trying to think of one, and couldn't. He couldn't answer probably the most fundamental question to ask of someone who thinks that random mutation can produce an increase in genetic information, yet he didn't have an answer. It was pretty embarrassing for him.

when everything from their flu shots to corn to the family dog all provide evidence supporting evolution

Again with the flu shots. You're not addressing my argument. I've outlined exactly what I believe and what I don't believe. I've defined all my terms. I've pointed out that I think one of the failings of evolutionists is that they use the truth of some aspects of the umbrella term "evolution" to establish the truth of other aspects of "evolution". That's a fallacy, yet even though I've pointed it out multiple times you continue to make it. It's disappointing.

Referring to your post where you define three aspects of evolution : I don't see how you can accept 1 and 2, yet reject 3.

Say we have a population of bacteria and we wish to produce blue bacteria. We take the current population and select the bluest (or, if they all suck at being blue, we pick randomly). In time blueness will mutate(2) and than we can select those with blueness(1) so that we have successevly more blue bacteria (either because we selected those with greater expression of the blue protein, or better mutations arose).

I think you accept all that.

So why can't I take the same bacteria and make a fish? You might argue that it could take a while but I don't see how one could deny that it would happen in an infinite timespan.

In which case, you accept evolution as possible, but impractical given the age of the Earth (which you might take to be circa 10K years - I'm not sure).

AGL

There are valid scientists that are skeptical of creative evolution (not a lot, but they exist). However, this is skepticism, not evidence; there isn't any other scientific theory that explains life. Well, there's some total crackpot theories, but none that are reasonable. "Creation Scientists", who are generally not scientists at all, don't really offer alternate hypothesis. They offer stories, but don't participate in the scientific method. They are purely skeptics, with no constructive scientific theories.

This is what I find frustrating about this poll. OK; it's one thing to ignore the scientific evidence, to remain skeptical, even if the skepticism is driven by non-scientific concerns (i.e., Christian faith). But people have been mislead into thinking their is alternate evidence, when there just isn't.

This is also why "creation science" has no place in the schools, because it is only faith, not science. Skepticism, epistomology, analysis, sure, but not faith under the misleading label of science. But frankly the Christians in question are only fans of skepticism when they want to sow confusion, I doubt they'd appreciate their children become adept at skeptical inquiry.

As an aside, when you read Darwin he clearly makes the same logical leap that I've been pointing out... he believed that "evolution by natural selection" can create new things, when natural selection itself only selects from existing genetic information.

It sounds like you think there's a gene "for" an arm, a gene "for" a leg, and so on. This isn't how it works. The same amount of genetic data can give drastically different results depending on what the actual data is. Think of it like a computer program. If a randomly generated executable is 10MB in size, it could be nonsense, it could print "Hello world", or it could be a web browser. And it could be any of those things without changing size. The complexity of an organism can rise or fall without any additional data.

By the way, I'm assuming that when you are talking about "creating data", you mean changes in the number of chromosomes?

Have we ever observed life spontaneously arising from non-life (simple amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment don't count)

Other than the fact that it undermines your argument, why doesn't it count? It seems like the perfect example of how a significant part of our current understanding of the origins of life were theorised and then subsequently proven by experimentation.

Creative evolution has never been observed, is not testable, is not repeatable, you can't make predictions of what creative evolution will produce

Apart from the counterexample you gave, why is "we haven't managed to do it yet" an unacceptable answer on the part of the scientists? Science is constantly advancing. Just because we very strongly suspect a theory to be correct and have only gathered enough experimental evidence to go so far as to prove 75% or so of the theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is automatically wrong. It means the theory is proving to be very reliable so far, and if that's not good enough, well you'll just have to wait until science has progressed a bit further.

Everything I see convinces me more and more that evolution is impossible and that we're a creation of God.

Why do you jump to that conclusion? If evolution is so wrong, why does that automatically mean that a supernatural being had to be involved? Why don't you allow for somebody coming along in ten years time, throwing away the theory of evolution, and proposing a better, natural one that you can agree with?

I thought I'd post the following list in response to Ian's above comment that scientific dissent is minimal, at best. Scientists and professors from numerous fields and universities have signed on to the following... (note: several have offered a competing scientific theory to the reigning paradigm, that of Intelligent Design).

• A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
• WWW.DISCOVERY.ORG

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the
second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

• “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
• selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
• evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

[Edited: the current list of hundreds of scientists is available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=153 (PDF). No reason to paste the whole thing here. I originally linked to this years ago... I see it's been updated since then.]

It's obvious now that I'm not going to convince you. So, instead, I'll close with some minor points.

Genetic algorithms are indeed related to evolution. Consider environmental conditions on breeding to be the fitness function. DNA interactions are essentially enormously complex computations.

Good, I'm glad you realize that the fossil record doesn't support gradual evolution.

I said nothing of the sort. The fossil record does support gradual evolution across many species. Expecting every single step along the way, however, when there are huge temporal gaps in what we have fossils of, is ridiculous.

you can't make predictions of what creative evolution will produce

We don't have powerful enough computers to do computations on that scale.

Greg Bahnsen has a false premise in his reasoning on survival of the fittest, in that it is actually a testable hypothesis. There are many examples of this, even in this thread.

They both have transistors, etc.

Which implies they came after the development of the transistor. If we were to find a microwave containing transistors which was manufactured prior to the invention of the transistor, this would contradict our notion of when transistors were invented. This speaks directly to the testability of evolution.

"Can you give any examples of a mutation that has produced an increase in genetic information".

Other people have attempted to correct your misunderstanding here. No new information need be "created" for new features to arise.

That's a fallacy, yet even though I've pointed it out multiple times you continue to make it.

And even though I've pointed out that creative evolution is part and parcel of selective and mutative processes, you persist in going back to the same faulty arguments regarding creative evolution being, somehow, different.

But, frankly, when it comes down to it, I don't care enough about the "issue" to continue arguing. I have no vested stake in believing one way (evolution) or the other (intelligent design, creationism, young earth, etc). The evidence just suggests to me that some neat stuff (including people) has arisen through evolution, and the same principles could be used to create some other neat stuff (like neat software, or new disease-fighting organisms, DNA computers, nanostructures, etc). I don't need to believe either way in order to see that the principles work pretty well in practice.

The theory of evolution is no longer, nor has it really been, solely Darwinism. In other words opposition to Darwanism isn't automatically opposition to Evolution.
Anyway, no reasonable scientist would dispute that evolution exists because we've already observed it (in our lifetimes in some cases). The real question for science v. creationism is did humans evolve from apes? Christians and others who believe in creationism don't think so and that's fine. What's a bit mind-boggling is the out-right rejection of evolution.

Adam:

I don't see how you can accept 1 and 2, yet reject 3.

Say we have a population of bacteria and we wish to produce blue bacteria. We take the current population and select the bluest (or, if they all suck at being blue, we pick randomly). In time blueness will mutate(2) and than we can select those with blueness(1) so that we have successevly more blue bacteria (either because we selected those with greater expression of the blue protein, or better mutations arose).

This example is an illustration of my point. The way you get greater "blueness" in a population is by selecting the bluest ones that already exist and breeding out the ones that have less blue. That genetic information for being blue already exists.

Your choice of the property of color is unfortunate, however (that's a general trend... if possible, always select a different property than color for discussion). For instance, a change in color may come about through mutation -- I've heard that red hair in people is a mutation. That's a good example of why color isn't a good property to discuss, actually, because AFAIK red hair in people comes about because of a genetic defect that makes redheads unable to produce a pigment that people could originally produce. So, that, like all other mutations we can speak of having observed, creates a loss of information in the organism.

Rather than color, let's take something more clear-cut, like your bacteria-to-fish example:

So why can't I take the same bacteria and make a fish?

This is a better example because it involves a change in structure of the organism, and requires many new features to randomly evolve, such as gills, scales, bones, eyes, etc. Most importantly, it necessarily involves a leap between a single-celled organism and a multicellular organism. None of these types of increases in information, creations of new structures, or major structural jumps/changes has ever been observed. So I'll reiterate that the belief that such things actually occurred is a faith committment... it's a vision of history based on assumptions that such a thing is possible in the absence of any observational evidence for it.

Ian:

However, this is skepticism, not evidence; there isn't any other scientific theory that explains life.

Like I've repeatedly pointed out, creative evolution isn't scientific either. The only sense in which it "explains life" is in terms of giving a theory of the origins of life. Ironically, one of the first rules of biology they taught us in high school is that life only comes from other life, yet evolution contradicts that foundational rule in claiming that life arose from non-living matter.

This is also why "creation science" has no place in the schools, because it is only faith, not science.

Well, that's a separate issue. Like I argue, (creative) evolution is the faith comittment of most scientists, and that's why it's the orthodoxy, even though to me it (along with the humanism that accompanies it) is every bit a religion as Christianity is.

Skepticism, epistomology, analysis, sure, but not faith under the misleading label of science.

"Creation science" is a topic for another day. However, any Creation science position, from intelligent design to a literal reading of Genesis will start from those theistic, supernaturalistic presuppositions and judge the evidence in light of those presuppositions, just as evolutionists presuppose an anti-supernaturalist and anti-theistic account of creation and work from their presuppositions. I've argued that both start from faith.

Jim:

Think of it like a computer program. If a randomly generated executable is 10MB in size, it could be nonsense, it could print "Hello world", or it could be a web browser.

The computer program analogy is an excellent one, and I use it often. Just like a program like Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word, the Linux kernel, etc. can't just "happen" randomly, highly structured DNA, very analogous to a computer program, can't arise randomly either^[1]. Computer programs are also a useful illustration of why mutations are almost invariably harmful, or at best have no effect on an organism. If I take a complex computer program and flip one bit in it (assuming that bit isn't in one of the non-executable portions of the program such as in text strings) (analogous to a point mutation), the program likely won't run, or will crash. You wouldn't get a new spellchecker out of it^[2]

The point is that the computer code has a highly complex structure. So, given that 10 meg "hello world" program, if you open it up in your text editor and change random characters in it you won't magically create a web browser. So even with two organisms that have the same number of base pairs, a mutation of one won't get you the other because, as you mention, the amount of code/DNA isn't important, but its structure is most important.

By the way, I'm assuming that when you are talking about "creating data", you mean changes in the number of chromosomes?

No, like you mention, the number of chromosomes, or genes, or base pairs, is unimportant. In fact, if I take an organism and add random bits of DNA to its genetic code to increase the size of its genetic code I'll most probably make something that "doesn't work" anymore. Also, we've recently discovered wonderful aspects of the design of some organisms -- their DNA actually codes for more things than would appear possible given its code size. Miraculously, the same DNA code is read at multiple different "offsets" (remember your biology... codons read in threes) to code for different parts of the organism.

Other than the fact that it undermines your argument, why doesn't [the Miller-Urey experiment] count?

Obviously I don't think it undermines my argument. It doesn't count because it's not an example of life evolving from non-life. All that are produced by the experiment are simple amino acids. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, scientists explicitly attempting to produce a given goal in a lab is not analogous to evolution which is said to have occurred randomly and without direction. Also, here's where we've discussed the Miller-Urey experiment previously. Read there for explanations of why the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't even show what it purports to show.

Apart from the counterexample you gave, why is "we haven't managed to do it yet" an unacceptable answer on the part of the scientists?

If that's your response, then you substantiate my point that evolution is a faith commitments not based on evidence.

only gathered enough experimental evidence to go so far as to prove 75% or so of the theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is automatically wrong.

Your 75% number is a fabrication. Furthermore, scientific theories aren't assumed true until proven wrong, they must be shown true. As I've pointed out, I haven't ever seen any evidence of creative evolution, and no one here has cited any. As I pointed out above, Dawkins couldn't cite any either.

Why do you jump to that conclusion? If evolution is so wrong, why does that automatically mean that a supernatural being had to be involved? Why don't you allow for somebody coming along in ten years time, throwing away the theory of evolution, and proposing a better, natural one that you can agree with?

Like I've said, my belief in Biblical Creation is a faith commitment, just as is the belief that life can arise spontaneously from nothing, which AFAICT will be the foundation of any natural theory of origins. However, as I pointed out in my first footnote, I think generally the most natural conclusion to come to when faced with magnificent design is that some intelligent being created it. One of the examples I like to bring up is the following: once when in the woods I saw a short chain of stones crossing the path. My natural assumption was that someone must have put them there, and that's just a simple line of rocks on the ground. That doesn't explain why I'm a Christian, of course. I'm just pointing out what our intuitions are when faced with obvious design.

Footnotes:
[1]: of course, if you bought a new hard drive and there was Linux on it, your logical assumption was that some other person put it there, not that the random bits on a blank hard drive just happened to code for it.
[2]: keep in mind also that the computer program would have to be self-replicating, contain its own execution engine (so, not only the code, but the computer itself would have to randomly arise), and be executable at each stage of its "evolution", as well as other features that aren't captured by this analogy.

Andrew:

Genetic algorithms are indeed related to evolution.

They're related to evolution in that "selection" and "mutation" are involved, but the selection and mutation in the implementation of genetic algorithms are different than in evolution. One major difference is that genetic algorithms are directed towards some goal, modified intentionally, and selected intentionally according to some intelligently chosen criteria of fitness. Another huge difference (in my opinion a critical one), is that in genetic algorithms the code isn't changed, merely the variables involved are changed. This point is made in AIMA (2nd ed), pg 120:

The actual mechanisms of evolution are, however, far richer than most genetic algorithms allow. [Different types of mutations occur, but most] important is the fact that the genes themselves encode the mechanisms whereby the genome is reproduced and translated into an organism. In genetic algorithms, those mechanisms are a separate program that is not represented within the strings being manipulated.

(emphasis in original). Also see this for further discussion of whether genetic algorithms are analagous to biological evolution.

We don't have powerful enough computers to do computations on that scale.

I could say more, but I'll simply say that that's a copout. It also shows how (at least currently) (creative) evolutionary theory is not scientific, as it makes no testable predictions.

Greg Bahnsen has a false premise in his reasoning on survival of the fittest, in that it is actually a testable hypothesis. There are many examples of this, even in this thread.

I haven't seen any. You also haven't explained how a tautological, or circular, statement can be considered scientific. [EDIT: I misspoke. I haven't seen any examples of creative evolution, but there have been examples of natural selection cited. However, given that natural selection is tautological, literally everything is an example of it. There can be no case where it doesn't apply.]

Which implies they came after the development of the transistor. If we were to find a microwave containing transistors which was manufactured prior to the invention of the transistor, this would contradict our notion of when transistors were invented. This speaks directly to the testability of evolution.

You completely missed my point. Given the evidence of similarity, there is no logical reason to assume that two organisms are both the progeny of the same biological ancestor. It's equally logical to assume they must have had the same designer.

And even though I've pointed out that creative evolution is part and parcel of selective and mutative processes, you persist in going back to the same faulty arguments regarding creative evolution being, somehow, different.

You haven't shown that new structures can arise given a combination of selective and mutative evolution. Remember that selective evolution only selects from features that already exist, and throughout this entire discussion I haven't seen anyone cite an example of where we've seen new structures come about through mutation.

I have no vested stake in believing one way (evolution) or the other (intelligent design, creationism, young earth, etc).

I think you're extremely invested in believing in a naturalistic theory of origins, for if we're creations of God than we're responsible to Him. That's why the theory of evolution is attractive... it allows atheists to have a theory of origins that doesn't depend on God.

I don't need to believe either way in order to see that the principles work pretty well in practice.

Again, as I've pointed out, no one has ever seen an example of creative evolution, so it's silly to claim that it “works pretty well in practice”.

Ela:

The theory of evolution is no longer, nor has it really been, solely Darwinism. In other words opposition to Darwanism isn't automatically opposition to Evolution.

Yes, I'm aware.

Anyway, no reasonable scientist would dispute that evolution exists because we've already observed it (in our lifetimes in some cases).

For a counter-example I'd recommend looking at the list of "reasonable scientists" linked above. Also, if you think we've observed examples of creative evolution, please elaborate.

The real question for science v. creationism is did humans evolve from apes? Christians and others who believe in creationism don't think so and that's fine. What's a bit mind-boggling is the out-right rejection of evolution.

If you've followed this discussion, I don't out-right reject evolution, but point out that the word "evolution" is used to refer to a few different things, some of which I reject and some of which I accept.

As far as the poll goes, it didn't make the distinctions I did between the different kinds of evolution. And son of a bitch, they just put it behind a login so I can't look at what questions were asked. But for example, given the question quoted above referring generically to "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" -- that's vague, since Darwin's theory of evolution entails a few different things. If the poll had asked questions such as "Do you believe that humans evolved from ape-like creatures", that would more accurately highlight which kind of evolution was being asked about.

One more thing for the night: I'd like to point out that in the nature of the case creative evolution is not directly observable because it takes place over such enormous timescales. To claim that it's happened is necessarily an extrapolation from, or an interpretation of, historical data. Because it is not directly observable, because you can't do experiments or make testable predictions based on it, and because it is not repeatable, in the nature of the case creative evolution is not scientific.

I've started a discusion over on my blog on this long standing debate. Part 2 is starting to draw some comments that highlight my issues with this debate.

Well, I must admit that this is one of the VERY few intelligent discussions I have seen regarding how evolution may or may not be true. I will do my best to keep the bar so high.

While Andrew has already made the point that 3 follows naturally from 1 and 2, and it does, what we are seeing here is a pure logical fallacy. "Since I cannot imagine how x could be true, it therefore is false." This is the same horsepucky that kept vitalism in biology so long, and makes idiots like Hammerof try to make consciousness into a "hard problem" that requires some science we haven't even invented yet to puzzle out. In short, it is slowing down the progress of humanity by saying "This is hard, so let's not even try." It is true that you cannot disprove creationism, but only because it has no referent, and therefore no testable theories. How does that help anyone? If, as Andrew and I argue, "creative" evolution follows directly from "selective" and "mutative," we can test these theories. Perhaps not at the present state of the science, but that doesn't mean that science will never be up to the challenge. To paraphrase Patricia Churchland, you not being able to believe in creative evolution is a statement about yourself, not about the potential veracity of creative evolution.

I am also curious as to how, without creative evolution, we have come to share about 99% of our genome with that of chimps, and somewhere around 90% with those of the rat and the mouse. Furthermore, almost all the genes represented in simple organisms, such as c. elegans (a flatworm) have analogues in humans that aren't very far from those you find in the worm. Almost everything we know about the mechanisms of cell death we know from the worm, and we see the EXACT same signals in humans. Without a common ancestor, how could this have come about? Did the creator have that limited an imagination?

Lastly, I cannot see how evolution directly contradicts the bible. Sure, they say that the Earth was created in 7 days, and man in a mere moment, but to God, a million years is as a second, isn't it? The Bible is metaphor, parables about right living, right conduct and right thinking. Surely the creation myth can survive a challenge to its timeline. But again, without any referent, we can have no testable theories. That puts us an endpoint as far as critical, and therefore useful and progressive thinking goes.

In short, we can either accept the theory so that we can disprove it or change it to something more like reality, or we can embrace Creationism and never think about it again. One leads to progress, one leads to the persecution of scientist. Take your pick.

Had to run this by you. I haven't had the opportunity to read the whole article, but it appears to confirm "scientifically," what Keith's been saying, in part, in the above debate. My two cents--all this talk about how people have manipulated existing DNA to "create" mo betta organisms seems like evidence of intelligent intervention/creation biology to me. Best regards and happy Thanksgiving (remember to Whom we are giving thanks BTW), to all!

http://www.discovery.org

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
September 29, 2004

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

Due to an unusual number of inquiries about the article and because the article is presently not available on line elsewhere, Dr. Meyer, the copyright holder, has decided to make the article available now in HTML format on this website. (Off prints are also available from Discovery Institute by writing to Keith Pennock at Kpennock@discovery.org)....

Ay, thanks for the info. Though, I wish you'd linked to the article directly so I didn't have to go looking for it: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...CSC&id=2177&callingPage=discoMainPage

Ian H:

Before I respond to your comments, I'd like to say that I'm gratified that people in this discussion have accepted my terms distinguishing the different things meant by "evolution". I wasn't sure when I made the distinctions whether people would dispute them. It gives me confidence that I've correctly made the appropriate distinctions.

(While I'm here, I'd like to make one other distinction. It's not important to the discussion right now, but I'd like to include while I'm thinking of it. If I want to be really precise, I'd separate mutative evolution into pseudo-mutative evolution and real-mutative evolution (or, just mutative evolution). I haven't pointed this out in the discussion, but it's been fairly recently discovered that sometimes the DNA of an organism changes in response to some environmental pressure in decidedly non-random ways. In short, the genetic code changes (in what I'm calling pseudo-mutative evolution) are not due to accidental copying errors, but in reality they appear to be evidence of self-modifying code. For example, some chunks of DNA are "turned off" or on by some decision we don't yet understand. It's a wonderful discovery and it further shows the design with which the creation has been made.)

I'll get to your comments in a bit... I'm about to have dinner.

I think you're extremely invested in believing in a naturalistic theory of origins, for if we're creations of God than we're responsible to Him. That's why the theory of evolution is attractive... it allows atheists to have a theory of origins that doesn't depend on God.

Many people seem to think of the theory of evolutlion as a "way out" of believing in God. In fact the existence of a Creator is a completely separate issue from evolution. Evolution simply says that one species descends from another, it doesn't explain how that process got started or why the universe exists to begin with. So believing in evolution does not necessarily eliminate the need for a Creator. Furthermore, if you are willing to believe that the universe came into existence purely by chance without the intervention of a Creator you could just as well believe that whatever freak accident created life made all the different species at the same time. So you don't really need evolution to keep from believing in God.

So, with the question of the existence of God aside let's look at two models for the origin of species:

1) instantaneous creation: all species came into existence simultaneously.

2) evolution: more complex species have descended from simpler ones.

Which of these two models more closely fits with observable evidence?

I'm no expert but from what I know evolution seems the best choice. Consider the fossil record: if instantaneous creation occured we would expect to find every species in every level or at least a random mix. Instead, we have simpler species in the oldest levels and increasingly more complex species in the more recent ones. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Gaps or no gaps the fossil record clearly supports evolution.

I agree with you that the theory is imperfect, however. As you've pointed out the appearance of a new species or very complex changes within a species has never been observed so we can't really know for certain if it can happen. Personally, I can't help but question whether random mutation combined with natural selection can really account for all the complexity of life. I think that there is still a good deal of mystery left. (I'm very intrigued by the idea of a self-modifying code that you mentioned.) But, between the two models I'd have to say that evolution fits the facts better. At least as far as I can tell.

Of course, where religion does come into play here is not in the matter of the existence of God, but in that of the interpretation of the Bible. The book of Genesis says that all life was created within a matter of days. Many Christians interpret this as myth or metaphor and thus have no problem with evolution, but for those who believe that the Bible must always be interpreted literally it is a real problem. According to the Gallup pole you qouted, about one third of Americans believe this which, not coincidentally, corresponds with the proportion who say that the evidence does not support evolution.

You know.... I have a couple of christian friends, and I've asked them about their reasoning about a couple of things, including whether gay people are born as gay people or not. And... interestingly, they admit that this is how they think:

1) God created man
2) God does not approve of homosexuality
---> 3) People could not be born as homosexuals
------> 4) Those who say people are born as homosexuals are wrong

I've not tried to build up the same argument when it comes to evolution, but I suspect they would be thinking in a similar way:

1) God created man
---> 2) Man could not have been created through evolution
------> 3) The theory of evolution (or parts of it) must be wrong

Do you think in this way, Keith?

Or do you think like this:

1) The theory of evolution seems unlikely
---> 2) Man must have been created in some other way
------> 3) The biblical description of it could be right after all

I HOPE you think in the second way... but then again I think that some christian people would admit to reasoning in the first way, so I guess it's a valid question to ask in which of the ways you reason?

(I know that this borders to calling you un-scientific again, but it's just one of those questions I think needs an answer before discussing evolution theories with someone religious.)

Mike:

Many people seem to think of the theory of evolutlion as a "way out" of believing in God. In fact the existence of a Creator is a completely separate issue from evolution.

Yes, it is logically possible that some creator would have worked its creation through evolution, but it's not logically possible that God (i.e. the God of Christianity and the Bible) worked His Creation through evolution. It's not "some god" that men want to hide from, but God. Read Romans 1 for the motivation for my statement.

Also, given that the whole conception of evolution is that it's a random, undirected, purposeless process, it's prima facie strange and implausible that some creator would work constant miracles over millions/billions of years only to make the creation look like an accident. It is certainly not natural to assume an intelligence behind such a process.

Which of these two models more closely fits with observable evidence?

I'm no expert but from what I know evolution seems the best choice. Consider the fossil record: if instantaneous creation occured we would expect to find every species in every level or at least a random mix. Instead, we have simpler species in the oldest levels and increasingly more complex species in the more recent ones. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Gaps or no gaps the fossil record clearly supports evolution.

In fact, I think the fossil record clearly supports a creationist account. Given a worldwide flood we'd expect millions of dead things buried all over the earth. Furthermore, fossilization requires rapid deep burial, as you'd get with a great catastrophe like the flood. Given a gradual burial things decay, so given normal slow burial over long periods you wouldn't expect such an extensive fossil record, yet we find even very fine and quickly decaying things in the fossil record (like poop, leaves, etc.). So, I think the very existence of the fossil record as we find it supports the Genesis flood account, and not a gradual burial over millions of years as you'd get with the evolutionist account. The order of the fossil record even supports the flood account. Moreover, the geologic column is not uniform over the earth as you seem to suggest, which is a problem for an evolutionary theory that looks to the fossil record for support.

...but for those who believe that the Bible must always be interpreted literally...

I get frustrated when people talk about Christians who believe the Bible must always be taken literally. The Gallup poll makes this error. No Christian believes that everything in the Bible must be taken literally. The Bible has many things in it that are figurative, such as metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, etc.

Mike, one more thing:

Furthermore, if you are willing to believe that the universe came into existence purely by chance without the intervention of a Creator you could just as well believe that whatever freak accident created life made all the different species at the same time.

That's not true. The probability of greater complexity arising randomly is less than the probability of less complexity arising randomly. So, if you relate plausibility to probability, it's much less plausible that someone would believe that "whatever freak accident created life made all the different species at the same time." I'd recommend reading the excellent paper Ay gave a link to because it goes into some of this.

Ian H:

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been extremely busy.

While Andrew has already made the point that 3 follows naturally from 1 and 2, and it does, what we are seeing here is a pure logical fallacy.

No, 3 is a combination of the first two, but as I've pointed out it does not follow from the first two. In other words, 1 and 2 are necessary, but not sufficient. If it helps you understand the distinction better, 1 and 2 essentially comprise what's usually referred to as "microevolution", while 3 is essentially "macroevolution". Do you think macroevolution is a natural consequence of microevolution?

"Since I cannot imagine how x could be true, it therefore is false."

Well, I certainly haven't made that argument. In fact, I find that evolutionists are often very imaginative while trying to come up with a way that some types of animals could have changed from one into another, and ways that certain features of animals (such as the woodpecker's tongue, or the bombadier beetle's defense mechanism) could have evolved. The problem for you is that that's not doing science unless you have evidence to support your imaginative fancy.

Perhaps not at the present state of the science, but that doesn't mean that science will never be up to the challenge.

I love when you say things like this, because it supports my claim that people like you believe in (creative) evolution not based on its scientific credentials, but because of your religious faith in evolution as a theory of origins.

Without a common ancestor, how could this have come about?

Talk about logical fallacies. I've covered this above. Similarity does not logically establish ancestry. That's your interpretation, or rather, your assumption.

Even so, I dispute some of your numbers above (this article about the chimp has some info), but that's irrelevant at this point.

Sure, they say that the Earth was created in 7 days, and man in a mere moment, but to God, a million years is as a second, isn't it? The Bible is metaphor...

Some of the Bible is metaphor, other parts are literal history. It's clear that the Bible means us to take the Genesis creation account literally. Plus, here's one logical reason - the Bible says that death began with Adam's sin, but if evolution is true there was death for millions/billions of years before Adam. Therefore, the evolutionist account is incompatible with the Bible.

In short, we can either accept the theory so that we can disprove it or change it to something more like reality, or we can embrace Creationism and never think about it again. One leads to progress, one leads to the persecution of scientist. Take your pick.

The fact is, many scientists throughout history have been religious (Kepler, Newton, Pascal, etc.), and moreover, I think only the Christian account of the world gives a basis for scientific inquiry at all. If the world is created by God, there is an order to it we can expect to discover. If it's all "random" we have no justification to expect any order to it at all, and that fundamentally undermines science. Furthermore, because of the inductive principle, scientific inquiry apart from a Christian foundation has no logical justification.

Do you think in this way, Keith?

Well, if it means anything to you I stopped believing in evolution before I became Christian. In fact, my belief in evolution, long geologic ages, the big bang, etc. was my primary objection to Christianity. Once I studied evolution and realized how bogus it was I was free to believe in Creation and Christianity.

So, when I talk about how evolution and the creation account are competing religious theories of origins I speak from a philosophical perspective as well as from personal experience.

I HOPE you think in the second way

I'll put it this way... temporally my thinking went in terms of the second way, but logically, necessarily my thinking must work in the first way. Just as your thinking must work in that way, except from the opposite direction. In other words, no one works from a neutral perspective when looking at these competing religious theories of origins. You don't seem to realize this, and that's what I was referring to when I pointed out that you don't understand how belief systems work.

Because the Bible is my ultimate authority, it precludes me believing in the evolutionist account (because it contradicts the Bible). Just as, because the Bible is not your ultimate authority, you choose to believe in what I consider to be a "naturalistic" fairy tale. Unfortunately for you, because you don't make God your final authority, you ultimately make yourself your final authority, and that winds you up in skepticism.

Yeah..... so basically you DO think in this way right now:

1) God created man
---> 2) Man could not have been created through evolution
------> 3) The theory of evolution (or parts of it) must be wrong

And that's more or less the end of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. You start out HAVING the answer, and seemingly the only goal of your reading and studying is to find out how you can prove that the conclusion in point 3 can have some real world support.

Un-scientific? You bet. Intellectual dishonesty? By definition.

(Sorry about the messy formatting in the numbered list, but I do not know how to escape your auto-magical comment parsing. Turn it off, I'd say. )

Sorry about the messy formatting in the numbered list, but I do not know how to escape your auto-magical comment parsing.

Just your standard escape character, our friend, the backslash.

Turn it off, I'd say.

The point of friendly markup is to DWIM best as possible. I allowed for the characters '*', '-', and '+' to start a list item. Since the '-' starting a list has regularly caused more problems than it has helped people writing lists, I've just removed it from the list of valid list-starting characters.

Now as to the content of your comment:

Like I've repeatedly said, the nature of man's creation is a religious view, not a scientific one. Your comment seems to have been written almost as if you haven't been following the discussion at all. As I've repeatedly pointed out, belief in creative evolution is a faith committment. It's silly for you to think that somehow you approach this issue in a neutral fashion.

I'm tired of your "gotcha" games you always play, and I'm tired of your repeated accusations of intellectual dishonesty. I don't take them lightly.

Well...... I guess I'll just have to stop arguing with you then.

But I'll make one last comment. This is what you said:

1) Belief in creative evolution is a faith committment
2) Belief in a creative God is a faith committment
=> 3) A belief in creative evolution isn't any better than a belief in a creative God, as far as objectivity goes.

Right?

So.... the problem with this is what?

The problem is that it isn't a complete argument. In order for it to be a complete argument, you'd have to try and make some assessment about the DEGREE if which each of them is a faith committment.

You know, you could put up the following argument:

1) Belief in Snell's Law of Refraction is a faith committment
2) Belief in a creative God is a faith committment
=> 3) A belief in Snell's Law of Refraction isn't any better than a belief in a creative God, as far as objectivity goes.

But it wouldn't be a fair conclusion would it?

-

Belief in Snell's Law I'd say is a small act of faith committment, because it's of an observable nature, kind of.

Belief in creative evolution is a large act of faith committment, I think, because there are very many un-certain factors.

Belief in a creative God is exclusively an act of faith, because there are only un-certain factors.

So.... if you'd allow me to complete your argument... I'd say that creative evolution is INDEED an act of faith, but it is not comparable to the act of faith that is needed in order to believe in a creative God.

In my opinion there's a VERY large difference between the amount of faith needed in the two cases.

I understand that you think the amount of faith needed is roughly the same... but I think you're wrong in thinking that.

-
Appendix A:

I understand that you think the amount of faith needed is roughly the same... but I think you're wrong in thinking that.

Actually, I think it requires much more faith to believe in creative evolution.

Ok. Show me your comparable version of the table in my "Appendix A", then!

Elling, you're kind of missing the point here... I started typing more, but I'm just repeating myself already.

Well... it's ok. I probably shouldn't argue with you any more.

But, there's one other thing which is a paradox with the way you (and many others) argue about your belief in God. And that is the way you often come out saying that belief in God should not be compared to science, because one is a case of faith committment, and the other is not. You often say that.

But yet, you find yourself constantly trying to justify your own belief with use of scientific arguments (such as your reference to the fossil record earlier on this page). Isn't that a paradox? When pushed, you say that religion shouldn't be compared with science. But yet, when arguing on your own you use "scientific" arguments all the time. That's strange, I think.....

Hey Elling, just wanted to take a break from studying to make sure you know I'm not ignoring your question. I was hoping to get to it before I had to buckle down for finals, but that didn't happen, so I'm going to have to get to it afterwards. In the meantime, I want to be sure you saw my long-awaited comment on that other post, in case you missed it.

Well... it's ok. I probably shouldn't argue with you any more.

Feel free to argue all you want. In fact, this question you asked is an excellent one... if you keep asking questions like this, then please keep arguing with me That's actually the main reason I didn't get to it before buckling down for finals... it's an excellent question that I want to take the time to answer carefully.

(Note that I'm only angry because you've repeatedly and without justification been accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. It's a case of crying wolf... if this had been the first time I probably wouldn't have taken much offense. Regardless, however, accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty is practically an ad hominem -- you should find better ways to approach your "opponents". Treat me, and others, with some respect.)

Hi Elling, I'm still being bad about studying, so I have a chance to get to your comment Incidentally, though I mentioned above that I thought your question would take a long time to answer, it has a much easier and more straightforward answer than I initially thought.

But yet, you find yourself constantly trying to justify your own belief with use of scientific arguments (such as your reference to the fossil record earlier on this page). Isn't that a paradox?

Not at all. When I bring up things like the fossil record I'm doing an internal critique of the evolutionary worldview. I point out that even the things evolutionists want to use for evidence (such as the fossil record) don't support them.

The strongest part of my critique, however, is that I've shown that creative evolution is a religious commitment and not a scientific belief at all. That really disturbs people who believe in evolution. A major part of their worldview and self-image is that they've freed themselves from anachronistic religious belief because they have a "scientific" way of looking at the world. I show that they're just fooling themselves -- religion is as fundamental to their worldview as it is to everyone else's.

Why is this excellent? The vast majority of Americans have horrible math skills. Many are functionally illiterate. A great deal are so ignorant about a great many things. Most likely, those who are educated about Darwin's Theory of Evolution said there is evidence supporting it, perhaps the rest don't know and/or don't care (probably like you and other creationists). You know, the right is so disingenuous, deceitful, and will grasp at any straw when it comes to evolution vs. creationism. It's laughable and does serious damage to them trying to make their entire religion appear to have any credibility. They should hang their heads in shame for what they did to Gallileo and other scientists. They're just simply continuing the dogma.

Your comment isn't worth responding to. Please read the discussion and feel free to address any points brought up, or of course feel free to offer your own arguments. Try giving some reasons for what you believe instead of ad hominems.

Hello Keith,
I have recently been studying the evolutionary debate and it seems evolutionists argue that dna just needs to be altered or mutated while others argue that positive information has to be added to dna in order for a species to evolve. My question is , is the dna of humans larger than that of monkeys? Or even further does more complex life have larger dna code & subsets than less complex life ? I see the whole evolutionary debate hinging on this as so far all mutations are just the rearranging of the same dna. And miscopied dna does add dna right , but it's not positive, just mumble jumble ? A final question; Has there been any speciation where the offspring can reproduce more of the same new species and later be hybrid with another species ? This seems like the only possible way the goo to you theory could be possible but seems unlikely as hybrids usually are weaker & die off. THANK YOU for your time, Jeff

Oops, thought of a final question i left out. With Hybrid/Speciation, does the new species offspring have a larger dna code ?

evolutionists argue that dna just needs to be altered or mutated while others argue that positive information has to be added to dna in order for a species to evolve

Keep in mind that the kind of evolution I'm focusing on says we started with literally just chemicals and wound up with people and everything else. When you have an existing organism one might argue that one organism resulted from changes in the DNA of another, but when you start with essentially nothing, everything has to be added. Of course, if you start with an existing organism and claim to wind up with another organism that has new features (wings, eyes, etc.) that didn't exist in the original, information has to be added.

But your distinction isn't really the right one to make. The major agent of change for creative and mutative evolution is mutation, so evolution requires mutation no matter what. But discussion of the information content of the DNA is orthogonal to that. I'll elaborate more below.

is the dna of humans larger than that of monkeys?

I surfed around for a bit trying to find a web page with a chart comparing different creatures' DNA length / gene count stats, but didn't find anything. As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong about some of this), humans have more genes than things like the flatworm, but similar counts to other creatures like monkeys, and some creatures have more genes than we do. But the number of base pairs or the number of genes is not the important thing. Rather, the information content is the most important thing. The best analogy I can make is to a computer program. You can create a computer program that has the same executable size as Microsoft Word but all it does is print "hello world". You can create an executable the same size as Microsoft Word but which does much more. You can create a DNA strand bigger than that of any living organism which has nothing but GCGCGCGC over and over again, but that (presumably) doesn't code for anything. In other words, it's the structure which counts, not merely the size.

Or even further does more complex life have larger dna code & subsets than less complex life ?

Like I said, you're conflating two separate issues. There's the mere size of the code, and its complexity or design. They're orthogonal.

I see the whole evolutionary debate hinging on this as so far all mutations are just the rearranging of the same dna.

No, all mutations are not just the rearranging of the same data. There are many different kinds of mutations.

And miscopied dna does add dna right , but it's not positive, just mumble jumble ?

Yes, if you copy the same DNA over and over, you don't get anything substantive added to the organism. It's the structure that's most important. The structure of the DNA is what evolutionists have no way to account for. If our DNA was merely made up of the same section copied over and over one might argue that those were merely multiple copies of the same "original" DNA (of course, where that original DNA came from would still be unanswered), but our genetic code is awesomely complex, and to me, just plain obvious evidence of design.

Has there been any speciation where the offspring can reproduce more of the same new species and later be hybrid with another species ? This seems like the only possible way the goo to you theory could be possible but seems unlikely as hybrids usually are weaker & die off.

I'm not sure of the answer to your question (though, I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking), but I'll point you to this short article on the mating of a zebra and a donkey. It's not that the hybrids are "weaker", it's that they're genetically unable to reproduce (i.e. their genes are incompatible and can't join together). It seems we don't understand completely why that is, especially since sometimes they can reproduce.

This seems like the only possible way the goo to you theory could be possible

You're saying that hybrids seem like the only way that "goo to you" evolution is possible? That doesn't make sense. Where did the original source parents of the hybrids come from in the first place? No one claims that the mechanism of evolution is the continued mating of different animals to produce hybrids. That's exactly the opposite of the evolutionary claim, which is that the same species change slowly over time within their own communities through mutations, selective breeding, and natural selection.

With Hybrid/Speciation, does the new species offspring have a larger dna code ?

According to that article I linked, donkeys have 62 chromosomes, horses have 64, and mules wind up with 63 chromosomes, for example. But again, the size of the code is not what's important, but its structure.

Keith Says :

You're saying that hybrids seem like the only way that "goo to you" evolution is possible? That doesn't make sense. Where did the original source parents of the hybrids come from in the first place? No one claims that the mechanism of evolution is the continued mating of different animals to produce hybrids. That's exactly the opposite of the evolutionary claim, which is that the same species change slowly over time within their own communities through mutations, selective breeding, and natural selection.

JEFF -
I thought that selective breeding produced hybrids ???

Hybrid is a vague term. Technically, every organism produced through sexual reproduction is a hybrid. But usually when you talk of hybrids, you mean the offspring of different species that mated, or offspring of members within a species that have different salient traits.

Regardless, your claim that hybridization is what makes "goo to you" evolution possible baffles me, because, like I said, starting with goo, there's nothing to make a hybrid of. You completely missed the point of the sentence you highlight, which is that no evolutionist claims that hybridization (in any sense) is the primary mechanism of evolution. Also, I could have just left "selective breeding" out of the sentence -- which I contemplated doing when I wrote it -- and what I intended would have been covered by "natural selection".

Hi Keith,
Just been reading this discussion for the first time, having come to your site through interest in your EXCELLENT coding resources.

I keep coming back to your views on the exceptional nature of what you term "creative evolution". Like others in this discussion, I take issue with this. There is nothing unusual about creative evolution, and it is proven to exist. When viruses or bacteria observably increase their DNA, this is creative evolution in action.

Let me try and make a hugely simplistic analogy. We have a very simple organism called Foo. Foo has genes which tell it to move in a straight line until it finds some food (I know genes don't really tell creatures to do stuff like that, but bear with me, this is deliberately simplistic).

Now, through random mutation occuring upon reproduction, Foo's offspring could lose some genes, or change the function of genes - this is the kind of "natural selection" you seem OK with. But Foo's offspring can equally acquire an extra gene! Yes they can! This happens all the time. Now, it is hugely unlikely that this extra gene will do anything useful. Most likely, it will do nothing. Second-most likely, it will do something directly harmful to the organism, like tell it to avoid food, and the organism will die and therefore the extra gene will not be passed on and will also die out. But, in a tiny tiny percentage of cases, this extra gene will do something useful, like tell Foo to go in a wiggly line to look for food, which might produce more success than a straight line, for example. If that happens, this Foo with the extra gene will be much more successful than his fellow creatures, and will have more breeding success, as will his offspring, so over time the extra gene will become an established part of nearly all Foos in the world. note that the new Foos are MORE COMPLEX than their ancestors - they have an EXTRA piece of DNA. This process, sufficiently repeated over long lengths of time, CAN turn a bacteria into a fish, to quote another post here.

This is basically what creative evolution is, and it is testable and observable, albeit only in simple creatures due to the fact that they reproduce so quickly that we can observe billions of generations within a short (by human standards) timeframe.

I'd just be interested to know your thoughts on my points. Not saying they prove or disprove anything deeper, but this point about 'creative evolution' is really bugging me. Keith, you put up a straw man when you say creative evolution means 'ex nihilo' creation - it doesn't, that's not what scientists are saying when they say creative evolution, they're saying a single extra bit of DNA can be created in offspring and this has been observed, and there's a tiny tiny chance of that piece of DNA being useful. Given these facts, natural selection can do it's work and it seems like you would basically accept that if only you didnt' have this problem with creative evolution, which I can't help feel is basically because you have an incorrect definition/assumption as to what creative evolution is.

PS I apologise for the length of this post. Just find all this really interesting stuff.

Why is it only Christians in America, especially the South that refuse to face the facts?

I am embarrassed by the fact that two-thirds of Americans don't believe in evolution. Has our educational system totally failed?

So, I don't believe in evolution (that human beings came from "ape-like creatures", and that life came from non-living matter), therefore I must be an uneducated moron? Thanks Hannibal.