The God Of The Gaps
Around the nation we see new attacks on science from all fronts by our government. On one front, we have the attack on meteorology. On another front, the attack on peer review. However, by far the most disturbing front is the attack on the most fundamental principles of biology. This is manifested in many ways, but the most visible is the attack on evolution. School systems around the country have been bombarded by parents to stop teaching evolution, and to instead teach the "science" that the world was created 6000 years ago by God. These fundamentalists attempt to twist the very definition of science and attempt to scientifically attack evolution. Their arguments sound pretty and simplistic, but break down under the most basic analysis. The attacks are usually based on four arguments, that something cannot come from nothing, that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and that God created the earth in 6 days at 4000 BC therefore evolution is impossible, and that evolution is just a theory that cannot be proven.
Many creationists are quick to point out a fundamental law of biology, that life cannot come from non- life in earth's current environment. In other words, maggots cannot come from rotten meat, they must come from flies. They are very quick to forget the last part of the law, the part that says the law is only true in earth's current environment. When life first came about around 3.9 billion years ago the earth was far different then it is now. There was plenty of heat to be a catalyst, a large part of the atmosphere was hydrogen, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, and there were constant lightning strikes. Scientists in the 1960's carried out an experiment where they emulated the early environment of earth at the time, their result was the creation of amino acids, a fundamental building block of proteins and extremely complicated. While many would say that life was not created in the experiment, it is important to note that the experiment lasted about 40 minutes and was in a tiny flask. The entire earth was in this state for over a billion years. Depressing as it is to think, life is not very special. Crystals also can reproduce themselves, thousands of chemicals create energy by chemical conversion, life is nothing but a combination of properties found by other nonliving things. Actually, I would venture to say that buckyballs (C60) are about as complicated as early life and they are created by volcanoes. What is more complicated? A basic archaea bacterium or a large ball of hydrogen that counteracts compression pressures with an outward pressure derived from nuclear fusion with such precision that it is in hydrostatic equilibriam1.
Many say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy can never be conserved in a closed system. This is coupled with the first law that states that entropy in a closed system can never go up. It can simplified for the purpose of this essay that order2 must always give way to chaos. Creationists say that evolution is in violation of this law because a bacteria evolving into a human counts as in increase in complexity. Once again, the creationists conveniently forget the other part of the law, the part that says it only holds true in a closed system. To even attempt to make the argument that the earth is a closed system is laugh inducing. The definition of a closed system is a system where no energy or matter comes in or out. The earth does not fit this definition because of the constant barrage of energy constantly sent at us from the sun, the constant influx of cosmic rays, to say nothing of asteroids. They also say that even if the earth is not a closed system, the universe is3. Even then, there is no violation. This is comparable to saying that building a car from raw ore violates the second law, but it does not because of all the waste that is created in the building of that car. Moreover, when you think about it, wouldn't god creating the whole universe as it is now out of nothing in 6 days constitute a violation of the second law?
The most laughable argument is that the world was created in 6 days 4000 BC. This goes in the face of uranium-lead dating which shows the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, potassium-argon and fossil evidence showing life has been around since at least 3.5 billion years with genetic evidence furthering that back to 3.9 billion. Even if you do not trust radioactive dating or fossils, then there is still one fact that cannot be argued. That is that we have detected light from a source 13.5 billion light years away. Since light travels at c that means that in order for the light to have reached us the universe would have to be at least 13.5 billion years old. Some creationists have responded by saying that the speed of light has decreased according to a y=1/x curve. That would be great because then our scientist's ultra precise instruments could detect the decrease. They then respond by saying that it conveniently stops decreasing right before we invent the equipment to detect this drop. This argument looks consistent if not a bit contrived until you remember what the speed of light is. The speed of light isn’t a arbitrary constant, the speed of light was discovered by Maxwell (before light was supposed to stop slowing down) to equal 1/the square root of the sum of the permeability of free space and the permittivity of free space (both are other constants). 4 in order for their theory to be true then those two constants must change with light. If these two constants changed by even one percent then electrons would not be able to orbit atoms, nucleons would be unable to hold together. The conditions required for life or even inanimate matter simply would not be present. And to quote the fundamental postulate of relativity: the speed of light is constant in any time or spatial frames.
The argument that is arguably the most idiotic and ignorant argument is that evolution is just theory, not a fact. To anyone familiar with science this sentence would be a hallmark of scientific illiteracy. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works and what a theory is. In science there are no facts, just hypothesis’s that fit the observations. When writing a paper on electrodynamics, I cannot put that my experiment proved gauss’s law, I instead put that my experimental observations are in concordance with gauss’s law. The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, as the earth being round. These are idea’s that have also been opposed by religion at some point in history, one step at a time I suppose.
One might question why the creationists who question evolution do so in face of established science. The reason why is because these people's god only exists in the gaps of science, and they want to keep those gaps wide. This god of the gaps was created in ancient times when religion was necessary to explain why it rained, why there were stars in the sky, why people got sick, and how to treat disease. Back then the gaps were very large. Now we have science and can understand most of the universe, the gaps have shrunk considerably. However, there will probably always be gaps in the understanding of existence. Nevertheless, as long as there are scientists the gaps will always shrink. this is exemplified in the 1950's when we knew atomic structure but realized that a nucleus of protons would repel with no force to counteract the repulsion, but in order for a nucleon to be stable there must be something to stop the protons from flying apart. The creationists jumped on this gap by saying that god used his sheer will in order to hold a nucleon together, and brought up biblical verses to back it up5. Of course, this gap like all other gaps was closed. In the 70's, the strong force of nature was discovered to emanate from the constituent quarks of protons and neutrons that overcame the protons electrostatic attraction, a couple years later scientists worked out a field theory to explain its behavior. The creationists who believe in the god of the gap look at science as a direct attack on there faith, they feel more comfortable in a universe that is simple. Sadly the universe never will conform to our simplistic expectations of coherency. May their god of the gaps always shrink.
FOOTNOTES
One: these complicated forms of energetic hydrostatic equilibrium are otherwise known as stars. Two: order is known in thermodynamics as complexity
Three: the idea that the universe is a closed system is debatable because of increased evidence of Rosen-Einstein bridges, essentially wormholes between different universes.
Four: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Overview for more information
Five: so apparently we overcame god’s will whenever we split an atom, thereby proving our superiority to god.
posted by David M. Shor at 4/27/2005 06:40:00 PM
42 Comments:
I do not believe that people are discovering that the big bang came from something nonexistent. Something always had to be there for the big bang to occur. You said, "May their god of the gaps always shrink." I don't think people are discovering how things were created by the big bang. I believe that people are discovering how God created things(including the big bang). In other words, I believe that people are discovering the ways of God, not the ways of physics and other forms of science(which had to be created by someone...).
So many things to point out. For one no-one creates a science, that would imply that Galileo put the stars into the sky just to piss off the pope. Science is simply observing reality and figuring out how it works.My second point begs the question of what you consider nonexistent. Funny thing about the Big Bang, it brought the things we can percieve into existence, basic thing like space, time, and anything we might recognize as mass or energy. So the Universe came from nowhere and no-when and had no-stuff in it. Hell we're only fairly certain it was there at all because 1. Here we are, and 2. evidence very very strongly suggests that it exploded to bring us to point 1.
What we do know is that there was a sort of exotic matter-energy-esque substance that later became the universe (its not an accurate description but its the best our language can allow).
All of that is logical as long as you dont bring any of that emotional human logic into it, instead under caustic mathematical analysis the universe begins to be sensible.
I will admit it is difficult to comprehend or even describe without contradicting myself.
regardless I have managed to describe a universe without explicitly bringing god into it.
Occlams razor says that if a obsorvation can be explained by 2 explanations, then the simplist consistent one is always true. if we see a cosmic microwave backround radiation along with increasing redshift in every direction, then we could assume that there was a big bang, whether god had to do with it or not there was a big bang that can be explaned by science, what made the big bang? that is but a temporary gap in science.
"what made the big bang? that is but a temporary gap in science."
If that is a temporary gap in science...what will scientists do when they figure out what caused the big bang? They will want to figure out what caused the thing that caused the big bang. Then they'll want to find out what caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the big bang. etc. It goes on and on and there is no end to it...
"what made the big bang? that is but a temporary gap in science."
Science can't answere everything though...When scientists discover what caused the big bang, they will want to figure out what caused the thing that caused the big bang. Then they'll want to find out what caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the big bang. etc. There is no end to it...People will never discover exactly how the universe was created, because it just always was...as was God in my opinion.
Your problem for the moment is that your thinking in linear terms, through most of our lives one thing happens and another occurs in response and so on and so on. But when thinking outside of time, and space those rules no longer apply whatever may have brought about the big bang (if anything at all) may have been brought into existence by the big bang (a confounding thought I know). But keep in mind that every moment in any given infinitesimal space trillions of bits of matter and energy and coming in and out of existence of their own accord for no perceivable reason at all.
"Then they'll want to find out what caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the big bang. etc. It goes on and on and there is no end to it..." What a novel thought it is that the end may be the begining.
What I think is funny is a theory is just that a Theory.......Hence it is not called a fact! And we can make up a bunch more theories to back it up so it sounds more real aswell. Humm just think on that for a second.
The theory of evolution is just that a theory.
Why dont we teach of God in public school? Because while a theory many follow has no proof.
So why should we be teaching other theories? And if we present one theory into the school system then we would have to present them all. Oh but wait we cant do that cause WE CANT ALLOW GOD IN ARE SCHOOLS!
If we evolved this is the question in my mind. And we have been recording history for a long time now. Why are we still evolving? Why arnt we seeing other monkies turning into huan biengs daily? Why arnt we seeing the process continue? WHat did just two evolve and then the process stop? ???
"The highly religious who believe in the god of the gaps look at science as a direct attack on there faith. May their god of the gaps always shrink"
So on the same note you run down relegion for the "gaps" and those gaps make it inferior. But science who has the same "gaps" has all the answers?
You are young ( I say this not to put you down or dismiss your ideas in the slightest just as a fact) You write you ideas elegantly. But the longer you live the more you see. And the more you see you realize that there is no answers. Not in science not in religeon.
Just as a idea for you. Since you research you ideas well. In college in one of my writting courses. We had to write several long papers. Are teacher gave us specific topics that people felt stongly over. Are first homework was to write what we felt about these topics and why. The rest of the term we spent having to write 13 page papers arguing the other side of our beliefs and proving are own thoughts wrong.
You seem very smart I would love to read something you would write taking the other side of these topics you post. I.E. birth control, religeon, big bang theory.
It is easy to beleve what your heart says or your been raised with ect. Kinda fun to jump on the bandwagon and try the other side.
yalita you misunderstood my argument, when I refered to the god of the gaps, i meant that the religious fundimentalists god existed in the gaps of science, therefore it is a god of the gaps. i did not refer to all religious beliefs as a god of the gaps, i simply said that the people who are trying to stop the spread of science are comparable to galieo.
does science have all the answers? probaly not, but it has alot of answers that we havnt found yet and il be damned if some people who claim to work for god stop us.
there is a place for god in the universe, but his place isnt in biochem and astrophysics.
Evolution is a theory, but I would suggest you look up what a theory is. The earth going around the sun is a theory, as is electromagnetism. In science there are no facts, it is impossible to prove something. It is possible to find evidence in support of a theory, but a theory can never be proven. I can say that there is much proof for evolution, genetic evidence, vestigial organs and so on. In fact evolution is one of the most basic concepts of biology. I suggest you do some research on it. On the other hand there is no evidence for intelligent design.
Religion is not a science; it is a matter of faith, anyone is free to believe what he or she wishes about religion. But when it comes down to what is taught in a science class using scientific principles and proof, then you teach biology.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Give this a read http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
with all due respect to you as a human being yalita that webpage is the largest piece of crap I ever read. Now not citing the perhaps other thousands of things wrong with it, it was written in 1928, If you go by the mindset underwhich that was written I am an inferior being due to my dark skin. All that you have managed to do is insult my intellect, my heritage and all of my other cognitive sensibilities. In fact right now I am under great strain not to divert to insults and expletives. So please explain what the hell you were thinking.
And as a Sidenote on the top of this thing using a whole paragraph the author professes the intended quaintness of this so called book.
And another thing we dont teach god in schools for a few reasons
#1. This particular nation was founded by men who went to great lengths to illustrate the fact that we are not a religiously inclined government. Despite their efforts religious bigots managed to get the insufferable quote "in god we trust" put onto currency.
#2. Despite whatever you have been lead to belive people of other ethnicities and religions exist and might be more than a little bit upset if they had to defy their own credos and accept a god they dont believe in.
#3. How is the Idea of a floating invisible magic giant somewhere in the sky who is always depicted as a caucasion male with wings and has not been publicly sited since around AD700 more valid than firm, observable, and often self evident "theory" and fact?
Nigel,
First off "1928, If you go by the mindset underwhich that was written I am an inferior being due to my dark skin. All that you have managed to do is insult my intellect, my heritage and all of my other cognitive sensibilities. In fact right now I am under great strain not to divert to insults and expletives. So please explain what the hell you were thinking."
Unless I missed something on that website and you came up with all this hostility from the year and you being of "dark skin" that is sad. so please show me what I missed about you bieng inferior cause if that said something like that in there i am sorry. I read it as well as i could with a 4 year old hopping on my lap.
"#2. Despite whatever you have been lead to belive people of other ethnicities and religions exist and might be more than a little bit upset if they had to defy their own credos and accept a god they dont believe in" Isnt that what the schools are doing to me, by teaching evolution!
"#2. Despite whatever you have been lead to belive people of other ethnicities and religions exist and might be more than a little bit upset if they had to defy their own credos and accept a god they dont believe in."
If someone prayed to God in school, that wouldn't make you have to believe in them...I think that religion should be allowed in school, but it should remain against the law for someone to be able to make someone else participate in their religious beliefs. I don't understand why it would make people mad if a Christian bowed their head and prayed before eating lunch in the school cafeteria, or why it would make someone mad if a Muslim started to perform the Salaah (Islamic Prayer). I also don't think it should make people mad if someone else believes in Evolution. I have a friend who is an atheist, and I have no problem with that, even though I have grow up around Catholics all my life (I however am nondenominational-I do not go to Catholic church). I think people should be able to express whatever religion they are, and people shouldn't have a problem with it. However, I think that it is wrong for people to try to make others change their religions beliefs...or evolutionary beliefs...as many scientists try to do.
evolution isnt a god. and nigel wasnt being clear, let me explain what he said: the scientists of 1928 also wrote essays saying that black people were inferior. all of the points brought up by by the 1928 paper have already been refuted by 77 years of science.
and yalita, pope john paul the second said in 1992 that evolution was true. because of papal infalibility, it is catholic doctrine. just bringing that up.
andrea, you can pray at school, its your first ammendment right, thats why jewish kids are allowed to wear yarmuke's. but when they start teaching god in biology class, or if the principal leads the class in a prayer to jesus, then theres a problem.
"evolution isnt a god."...but it's a belief.
"andrea, you can pray at school, its your first ammendment right"
Not in my school...lolz. Of course, my principal is a racist, sexist, nazi who likes to hit on the students XD he has problems...I don't see him having his job much longer. lol.
"but when they start teaching god in biology class,"...I wonder why they can't have a religion class for that then...Teaching people about someones religion isn't the same as forcing them to start worshiping someone elses God...Just like teaching people about evolution isn't the same as making them believe in evolution.
David, let me know when you're on...Rach wanted me to tell you something, but I have to go soon. lolz.
thank you david
the reason we cannot have a religion class is because schools public schools are funded by the government. Keep in mind that catholic schools, and religiously based private schools do exist and the options are available to you. That is why when one asks for religion class in a public school, you are in effect asking to bowl your religious preference onto others and asking the government to pay for it. Which is indirectly asking for taxpayers to fund your religion, taxpayers who may not believe in or even like your religion.
David,
Cut and pasted from differnt site about the debate about what the pope did or did not say about evolution.
"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."
Q: Why do you stress the phrase "widely reported by the English-language media"?
A: Because there has been some confusion in the English-language media concerning the proper translation of what he said.
Q: What other translations are there?
A: Several, but the primary other translation that has been offered is this:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."
Q: What is the difference between these two translations?
A: According to the first translation the pope would be saying that new knowledge has led to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis (in other words, that it is regarded at least provisionally as a true scientific theory).
According to the latter the pope would simply be saying (as is admitted by both evolutionists and special creationists) that new data has resulted in there being more than one hypothesis, more than one version of evolutionary theory.
This would not be an endorsement of evolutionary theory, but make a point that is stressed by special creationists (i.e., that there are several theories of evolution which contradict one another).
A little later in his address, the pope definitely addresses that theme, stating:
"[R]ather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations" (emphasis in original).
Q: What is the original sentence in French?
A: The original sentence is:
"Aujourd’hui, près d’un demi-siècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse."
Q: Why is there a difference in the translations?
A: One reason is that the pope gave the speech in French and the phrase for "more than a/one hypothesis" is "plus qu’une hypothèse." The French word une can be translated either "a" or "one." The rest of the sentence and a knowledge of French idiom is needed to determine which reading is correct.
(A parallel example in English would be the sentence "I took the kitty to the veterinarian." The word "kitty" can be used in English to mean either a small cat or the pool of money used in a card game, and you need more than the word itself--you need its context--to determine in which sense it is being used in this case).
Q: Which translation of the key phrase is correct?
A: I have run the French sentence past multiple French-speakers. Those who are native English-speakers and learned French in school have been uncertain what the correct translation is, but all of the people who have French as their native tongue have said that the most widely reported translation of the key phrase -- "more than a hypothesis" -- is undoubtedly correct and that if he had intended to say "more than one hypothesis" French idiom would have required it to be phrased a different way.
There is also a November 19, 1996 news story from the Catholic News Service (CNS) in which the matter of the correct translation was dealt with an in which the translation "more than a hypothesis" was confirmed.
Q: What did the CNS news story say?
A: It said:
"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.
"In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.' His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research.
"In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;
"U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.'
"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.
"This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."
Q: So, bottom line, the best rendering of the statement should be what?
A: According to the native French-speakers I have consulted, the best translation is:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?
A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research."
The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.
According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.
Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize" (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition" (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).
In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is constructed in French suggests that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he believes in evolution or not and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the scientific community.
To sum it up for me. I jsut think the THEORY of evolution has to many gaps in it. There are tons of theories about how the world started. All can find documents of some sort to back it up. I just think unless society as a whole agrees wiht one idea. One idea shouldnt be taught. Either state all theories. Or none :)
I thought and correct me if I'm wrong that david quoted pope John Paul (1992) not pope Pius XII from 1950.
I also notice you have an astounding propensity for finding information that *conveniently* bolsters your arguments, no matter how erroneus and/or outdated.
"One idea shouldnt be taught. Either state all theories. Or none :)"
Therin lies the problem creationism has no evidence other than your believing in it. So far no one has found magic dust from when god made the universe. We go on what we have and then observe it objectivley.
All evidence I have ever heard of that was said to prove creationism was just evidence that was found to be proof for evolution the only change being that the evidence was taken to mean something in favor of creationism.
in the interest of a debate, let us be more specific, yalita how about you list some of the gaps in evolutianary theory, and nigel lets not get too personal.
Nigel,
You have one huge chip on your shoulder. For one if you bothered and by your comment you didnt read that you would know it was about JP2 and what he said. But i guess you couldnt read past what the first few lines to find that out or you would have known.
"I thought and correct me if I'm wrong that david quoted pope John Paul (1992) not pope Pius XII from 1950.
I also notice you have an astounding propensity for finding information that *conveniently* bolsters your arguments, no matter how erroneus and/or outdated."
Funny one day I just stumbled on this site and liked what i read. Even thought my opions differed. But it seems to me that you cannot respect different opions than you own. I have said nothing derogitory towards you or anyone but as of so far you mock my beliefs. "All that you have managed to do is insult my intellect, my heritage and all of my other cognitive sensibilities." OMG get on with yourself. I just stopped by for a lil bit of debate wiht a post or two i read i disagreeed with but you cant just debate issues or ideas.
You want to post on the internet about "logical topics" then learn the art of debating and discusions. Not cry ohh they insulted me. And ohh lets just disprove anything from this year because i dont like that year so it must be all crap.
"1928, If you go by the mindset underwhich that was written I am an inferior being due to my dark skin. "" the scientists of 1928 also wrote essays saying that black people were inferior. "
For one the first date i see on there is 1925 and funny thing nigel cant stand the mindset of the people from then well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
dang wont let me post whole link
the end is Scopes_Trial
Hehehe.. That's pretty hardheaded.
Apparently I've offended your beleifs, I suppose I was a bit hardened from dealing with hardcore racists common to where I live (keep in mind I am not calling anyone a racist, just pointing out that I have to deal with them) I apologize for my lapse in civility. What I dont apologize for is thinking that practically every scientific work dating back to 1928 or worse 1925 has been discredited. When you refer to 1925-1928 you refer to a time when the KKK movie "Birth of a nation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_a_nation)
was endorsed by the president himself a time when cocaine was made illegal not because the put it in soft drinks but because and I quote "Cocanized Niggers went wild in a small town in texas". I wont mention what happened to them afterwards, suffice it to say the death was described as painfully slow. I think that me being quick to disregard information from such an age is understandable from such a context.
And when I say the movie was endorsed by the president I mean he was quoted as saying the content was "so true" despite whatever satirical intentions the creator may have had.
nigel...... your attacking a person not a argument, not the way to debate. but yalita, could you specify the gaps in evolution?
1. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
2. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
3. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
4. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
5. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
6. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
7. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
8. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.
Well I do have to say this. In the spare time ihave I been looking into this topic due to this blog :) And seems the more i research into it the more upset i become. Not at the idea of evolution but how if you dont buy into the theory of evolution you are shunned. I came across this one site about this guy (exerpt from site)"Kenyons credentials are exemplary. Not only does he have his Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford but he also completed post doctoral work at the University of Southern California, Berkley, Oxford University and NASA.
Kenyon was not attempting to insert religion or creation in his classroom, but simply presenting to students the logical implications of the results of his research.
Kenyons case was such a blatant example of academic bigotry that even the San Francisco State University's Academic Freedom Committee ruled in Kenyon's favor (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1999, p. 100)." http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/christianity_science/75915
And also stumbled on this site http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm
But religeon aside these are people who arnt exactly dumb and did there homework. (moreso than i could do) and come to at least question evolution. Not all take the side of creationism but just dont see how evolution works. And dont it seem wrong that in biology class they even manage to say that evolution might be wrong? Istn the idea of school to expand peoples thinking? Dont we expand our minds by questioning what we know to be true? Then woudlnt giving the students all the information be the way to teach?
I mean someone dont this eem wrong to you?
"Dr Erville Clark was denied his Ph.D. in biology at Stanford University merely because he was a creationist. George Mulfinger, a well-known creationist and professor of physics in Greenville, South Carolina, was refused his Ph.D. because he was a creationist. This was despite graduating summa cum laude with straight A's in all of his graduate work. Internationally known creationist Dr John N. Moore, a professor of natural science at Michigan University (currently professor emeritus) was denied the right to present a paper at the October 1983 National Association of Biology Teachers Convention in Philadelphia because of the paper's alleged creationist content."
Do people have to be so politicaly bound and have to be right all the time no matter what. That they cant even open up to the possibility they may be wrong.
I do not subscribe to the notion of an intelligent designer (creationism) beacause of certain stupidities evident in the human form. Not to mention the other discrepancies of nature.
To start with there is the existence of parasites, virii and harmful bacteria. If one believes that there was an adam and eve and that all creatures came into existence at the same moment then the detrimental organisms that plague us would have had to have been there to. If that was true adam and eve would been dead on the spot from hundreds of millions if not billions of different species of fungi, virii, bacteria and assorted parasites that have existed over the years.
Moving on, other elements of both our and most other creatures poor design include, the fact that flighless birds have a hollowed out skeletal structure in a flying bird this is essesntial weight reduction but in an ostrich it only serves to make the bird more susceptible to predators since the wight reduction is neglegible for a running creature with such strong leg muscles. On top of that since ostriches dont fly they have no need of wings, though the tiny wings they do have make terrible arms and serve absolutely no purpose. Moreover the human Appendix serves no purpose and poses a serious infection risk, it can be removed without any detectable change in a patient (save the lack of an appendix).
Then of course we have the human eye in the human eye all of our photoreceptors are backward (or wired as such) with our optic nerves in the way of incoming light. Cephalopods dont have this problem but of course all vertabrates share this common trait. Hypothetically speaking if an intelligent designer did that he would have had to have been drunk, of cousre under evolution its understandable.
Then we have the problem of distribution, it seems that species are distributed in a manner that suggests migration from a single point. It is common knowlegde that Similar species of tapirs are found in the seemingly distant regions of South America and the East Indies, but related tapir fossils have been found in the intermediate continents of North America, Asia and Europe.
Now we have Paleontological evidence that supports the notion of evolution in horses (I should say equine) using biostratigraphy we have determined that in an are that was mostly swamp with soft groud level flora the horse ancestor hyracotherium had 4 splayed and long toes that would spread its weight out and keep it from sinking along with short teeth for the soft leaves and a light build. Over time as the ground hardened and grass began to grow hyracotherium became the horse we know today with its feet becoming smaller its body larger and its teeth longer.
A more recent and direct example of evolution is the british pepperred moth Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray color, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the gray tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene. This all changed during the industrial revolution when it began to dominate. There is some debate as to why and how the Industrial Revolution caused this change, but it is generally accepted that pollutiona and soot turned the trees black giving the black variant a biological advantage. Regardless of the debate no one can dispute that they were predominantly gray before the Industrial Revolution and predominantly black afterwards, thus acting as an example of environmentally driven change also known as evolution.
For more detail in anything I say a good place to go to is Wikipedia.
IN regards to your argument of your argument you are on some level right there are millions of transitional stages between points of speciation "sometimes". But the process is not the most common form of evolution, you see the earth is in no way shape or form a closed system we suffer constant solar bombardment by the sun and the occasional flares that escape it and wreak havoc with the planet. Not only that we suffer from a constant stream of cosmic radiation (rays) that seems to come from everywhere (and does), it bears down on all points in space, the only thing protecting us to a degree is our atmosphere. In fact the effects of this energetic emission has been the secondary catalyst for most evolutionary advancement, most scientists believe that this is the reason for our sentience/consciousness/soul and incredible intelligence.
The way evolution works is that at first you have an individual with a set genetic code. At any time during this individuals life (even before birth) the might be hit with a bit of cosmic radiation (which is mutagenic in nature) at this point we have a random mutation it could just as easily result in a miscarriage or mental retardation as it could give the offspring wings. Whatever happens if this mutation allows the offspring to better survive/survive longer the offspring will have more children than other members of the species who do not posses this mutation. If the advantage is great enough soon either all members of the species will have the gene or the offspring’s offspring will slowly migrate and adapt becoming a new species over time usually with the help of similar mutagenic processes (keep in mind its possible both of these things will happen).
In regards to life starting on earth, at first most of the earth surface was hot sulfurous and muddy (but intensely rich with minerals) given a billion years in this state a protein sequence arose (the first in fact) in time it became an amino acid arose it was made up of proteins nothing too new until you realize its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and its self replicating its not quite life yet but its a start. From here the individual acid molecules twist every so often then the break in half and pair up (reproduction) changing a bit with each generation. After some time in this state the earth developed oceans where DNA could easily survive (RNA developed in much the same way but RNA dies very quickly but is easy to produce). Over more time DNA teamed up with RNA (literally) and DNA being the long lived structure RNA being the short lived attendant that was easily produced. Now that DNA and RNA had developed a symbiosis, They (RNA) eventually evolved to gather water fats proteins and lipids to form protoplasm a cell. After a few hundred million years these cells began to divert into different species 1 becoming the cells we know and love species 2 becoming mitochondria. by this point in earth history sulfur and carbon dioxide were gases in decline while oxygen levels were going up, unfortunately this made it impossible for *cells* to live at the ocean surface along with mitochondria who adapted quickly. After about 7 million years cells evolved to metabolize oxygen (inefficiently) though they grew lethargic in the process. Mitochondria being free-floating bacteria found it easier to survive inside of a cell they eventually colonized all of our single celled precursors a relationship where the mitochondria would survive and all of our cells are provided with energy and much of it (it is bittersweet though since breathing in oxygen breaks down or oxidizes our cells this is the cause of many of the symptoms of old age like loose skin and wrinkles). From here we have a viable starting point for all life.
I nearly forgot about the claim that no new genetic information has ever been added it is debunked through observation, since gene duplication and mutation will append new information so will a whole host of other biochemical processes. In fact its an argument that has been brought up and promptly disproven on many many creationist and evolutionist sites.
U guys needa get a life lol.
j/k.
HI MATTY!!!
For all of your questions answered and more try this site
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi David M. Shor, I'm making a science laboratory equipment blog feed list for the fall semester and you wouldn't believe how many bad blogs there are out there. I'm a freshman at the Univ. of NM and have to find as many science laboratory equipment related blogs for this project. Our lab team created a science laboratory equipment site as a reference directory. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that your The God Of The Gaps post is a perfect example of what our team is looking for. We'll be adding your feed to our project of useful info. Thanks so much.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home