Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/latest_bio-comp084531.html?utm_content=buffer3277a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[KingJ]

Lol, I laughed at how they explained it was debunked a while back. They just don't / can't accept it.

It is proof that River is a liar every-time she claims to ''see'' evolution.
Irreducible complexity exists, it debunks evolution 100%. It is observable evidence that all can see right now. Not just River and those with biology degrees .

 

[River Jordan]

Lol, I laughed at how they explained it was debunked a while back. They just don't / can't accept it.

That's what you guys are hanging your hat on? A creationist journal that can only muster 1 research article a year, publishing an article saying "Nuh uh...no one's refuted creationism!"?

Wow...talk about desperate. :lol:

It is proof that River is a liar every-time she claims to ''see'' evolution.

A creationist journal published an article about computer simulations, therefore I did not see a population of E. coli evolve resistance to an antibiotic? :wacko:

And you think that makes sense?

Irreducible complexity exists, it debunks evolution 100%. It is observable evidence that all can see right now.

Really? Where can I see this observable evidence that debunks evolution 100%?

 

[KingJ]

Really? Where can I see this observable evidence that debunks evolution 100%?

At the same time you are observing your so called evolution ^_^.

Irreducible complexity shows how dishonest you are. Working for a motor mechanic for a day > evolutionary biology.

Darwin was honest enough to write this ''If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case''

That's what you guys are hanging your hat on? A creationist journal that can only muster 1 research article a year, publishing an article saying "Nuh uh...no one's refuted creationism!"?

Wow...talk about desperate. :lol:

After all we have discussed you see this as the only thing we hanging our hat on? . The truth is that your line shows how desperate and blind you are becoming in your support of evolution.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

Again it seems obvious you are pretending not to understand the point.

Irreducible complexity has nothing to do with E. coli reproducing only those organisms that are antibody resistant. That is exactly what we would expect to happen in a controlled experiment with an intent on observing "natural selection."

What the ID movement attempts to accomplish is to prove that Darwinian concepts of speciation, origin if life and explanation of complex biological structures are not sufficient to explain biological diversity.

I will explain this to you like you are a freshman at Biola as long as you continue to act like one.

It seems you continue to be vague on where you stand. You either don't know or you constantly fine tune your discussion skills by playing several sides. If the former, my wish is that you open your mind somewhat. If the latter, welcome to the club.

Let's proceed as if you are unsure. It would be to your benefit to comprehend teleology both as a Christian and an Darwinist. Both views have deterministic aspects.

If there are systems, organisms, etc that are irreducibly complex and the watch maker is indeed blind we have a conundrum. Obviously you can't make a post hoc claim, and you can't dance to DNA with two left feet.

So, computer models are set up to attempt to select function from an ateological perspective. And they fail. Every time.

Is your watch maker blind? Does He need to ask you the questions He asked Job? Or is he off on a journey, or maybe he is hard of hearing?. Or are you suggesting he doesn't care?

You claim ID is not included in science journals. You are incorrect. It appears very often in journals always from the aspect of being debunked. Now, are ID researchers given the chance to publish? Not on your half life. The rules are different. Some are more equal than others.

No worries though. As someone once said "scientific revolutions occur one retirement at a time." When you are a post doc, you will find that the ID movement will be a constant thorn in your flesh. Perhaps not. Perhaps you will know where you stand by then.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

 

[KingJ]

We should start a thread on ID and IC. They are two terms that no sane person can ever accept as debunked.

I am reminded of this quote by Sir Isaac Newton ''In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence'' http://realtruth.org/articles/091207-003-science.html

I couldn't ignore this line on that link ''chance is the god of atheism, and evolution is the handmaiden of chance'' How true!

 

[River Jordan]

At the same time you are observing your so called evolution ^_^.

Irreducible complexity shows how dishonest you are. Working for a motor mechanic for a day > evolutionary biology.

Darwin was honest enough to write this ''If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case''

Sorry, but you're not even making sense. Again, how does irreducible complexity mean that I'm a liar when I say that I've seen E. coli evolve resistance to antibiotics?

We should start a thread on ID and IC. They are two terms that no sane person can ever accept as debunked.

Again, how do you know? You've not studied this subject even one little bit, yet you're still acting like you have. IMO, that's being extremely deceitful.

I couldn't ignore this line on that link ''chance is the god of atheism, and evolution is the handmaiden of chance'' How true!

So nothing happens on its own? God personally designs everything?

If so, did God personally design the ebola virus? The parasite that causes malaria? The botulism pathogen? All of the infectious organisms require very specific and detailed biochemical pathways and structures to infect. But according to you, it is impossible for them to evolve naturally. Doesn't that mean you therefore believe that God personally and intentionally "designed" all the pathogens, parasites, pests, and other organisms that have caused untold suffering throughout human history?

Irreducible complexity has nothing to do with E. coli reproducing only those organisms that are antibody resistant. That is exactly what we would expect to happen in a controlled experiment with an intent on observing "natural selection."

Then you and KingJ need to talk. He seems to think that irreducible complexity means I'm a liar when I say I've seen E. coli evolve antibiotic resistance. He's also argued that natural selection never happens.

What the ID movement attempts to accomplish is to prove that Darwinian concepts of speciation, origin if life and explanation of complex biological structures are not sufficient to explain biological diversity.

And they have completely failed at that. ID creationism is effectively dead. It was created as a legal strategy to subvert court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools. They figured they'd strip Biblical creationism of its overt Christian themes and sneak their material in under a new label, "intelligent design". But a court ruling in Dover, PA put an end to that.

So as a legal strategy, it'd dead, and given that it has not generated any original science (they still can't answer the fundamental question of what is or isn't "designed"), it's scientifically dead as well.

I will explain this to you like you are a freshman at Biola as long as you continue to act like one.

Really? So what courses in evolutionary biology have you taken? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What conferences on evolutionary biology have you attended? What professional biology journals do you read? When was the last time you were in a science library?

If there are systems, organisms, etc that are irreducibly complex and the watch maker is indeed blind we have a conundrum. Obviously you can't make a post hoc claim, and you can't dance to DNA with two left feet.

Except the fundamental problem with your argument is, it's long ago been shown that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of producing irreducible complexity. That pretty much ends the whole argument for ID creationism right there.

So, computer models are set up to attempt to select function from an ateological perspective. And they fail. Every time.

It's funny how someone claiming that he's going to teach me all about this subject is completely unaware of the material I just linked to.

Is your watch maker blind? Does He need to ask you the questions He asked Job? Or is he off on a journey, or maybe he is hard of hearing?. Or are you suggesting he doesn't care?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked KingJ...

So nothing happens on its own? God personally designs everything?

If so, did God personally design the ebola virus? The parasite that causes malaria? The botulism pathogen? All of the infectious organisms require very specific and detailed biochemical pathways and structures to infect. But according to you, it is impossible for them to evolve naturally. Doesn't that mean you therefore believe that God personally and intentionally "designed" all the pathogens, parasites, pests, and other organisms that have caused untold suffering throughout human history?

You claim ID is not included in science journals. You are incorrect. It appears very often in journals always from the aspect of being debunked. Now, are ID researchers given the chance to publish? Not on your half life. The rules are different. Some are more equal than others.

Ah yes, the conspiracy. So where are the piles of rejection letters from these journals? Surely if ID creationists have been doing scientifically valid work, submitting it to journals, and being arbitrarily rejected, there would be some hard evidence in the form of a pile of rejection letters that give ideological and/or arbitrary reasons for their rejection.

No worries though. As someone once said "scientific revolutions occur one retirement at a time." When you are a post doc, you will find that the ID movement will be a constant thorn in your flesh. Perhaps not. Perhaps you will know where you stand by then.

You think so? What progress has ID creationism made in the last 10 years? Shoot, can they even say what is or isn't "designed"?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

At the next fundie convention KingJ and I will have to have a talk after foot washin' service.

River,

Your cartoonish view of ID borders on hysteria. Eugenics Scott would be proud.

 

[River Jordan]

Standard creationist response....ignore everything I posted (questions, data, information) and throw out a weak personal insult.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Detailed response coming. I ran into a time snag.

 

[KingJ]

Detailed response coming. I ran into a time snag.

Please don't waste your time CJ, surely you have better things to do .

I would rather stab a pen in my eye.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

I am going to have to go one point at a time, which is the way it should be done anyway.

Dr. Steve Matheson a well-respected Darwinian evolutionist and leading opponent of ID says it is nonsense to keep whining about ID being creationism masked. He, like you, professes Christ and readily admits that this fact makes him a creationist.

Matheson argues that playing definition and label games is silly and the real question is what is the truth?

Now, will you be calling out Matheson on this or will you tone down the creationist hysteria?

 

[River Jordan]

I am going to have to go one point at a time, which is the way it should be done anyway.

That's fine.

Dr. Steve Matheson a well-respected Darwinian evolutionist and leading opponent of ID says it is nonsense to keep whining about ID being creationism masked. He, like you, professes Christ and readily admits that this fact makes him a creationist.

Matheson argues that playing definition and label games is silly and the real question is what is the truth?

There are two different questions here. The first centers around whether ID was specifically crafted by creationists as a legal strategy. The evidence is overwhelming....it is. Thus, it is dishonest to pretend ID creationism is just something scientists came up with on their own, with no political or social agenda whatsoever.

The second is what Matheson asks....is ID creationism valid science?

So if we're in agreement on the first question, then by all means we can move on to the second.

Now, will you be calling out Matheson on this or will you tone down the creationist hysteria?

Citing the facts is not "hysteria". If the facts bother you, then the problem is on your end.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

No, there is not agreement on the first. You must define creationism.

In the ID movement there are agnostics (Berlinski), there are those who hold to some degree of common descent (Behe). What is missing? Hmmm, I see no YEC's. Actually, I have to keep them from strangling each other.

So, let's determine what it is we are discussing. What is creationism? Thus far, you seem to avoid this question. Perhaps I have missed it, but I have never seen you address God's role in our existence apart from He allowed it to happen. Could you be more specific?

 

[River Jordan]

No, there is not agreement on the first. You must define creationism.

For the purposes of this discussion, we can define "creationism" as a viewpoint that rejects most of modern evolutionary theory in favor of supernatural creation.

In the ID movement there are agnostics (Berlinski), there are those who hold to some degree of common descent (Behe).

Berlinksi is marginally (at best) an ID creationism advocate.

"Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives.""

And while Behe agrees with common descent, he does not believe evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to accomplish it and he instead believes God was deliberately behind it.

What is missing? Hmmm, I see no YEC's. Actually, I have to keep them from strangling each other.

YEC and ID are two different forms of creationism. Also, there are indeed YEC's who are ID creationism advocates.

So, let's determine what it is we are discussing. What is creationism? Thus far, you seem to avoid this question. Perhaps I have missed it, but I have never seen you address God's role in our existence apart from He allowed it to happen. Could you be more specific?

I thought we were doing this one topic at a time?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Berlinski is not sold on ID, he doesn't claim to be a believer and he doesn't think that Darwinism us true. This seems like the very definition of agnostic. He does however get paid by the discovery institute and makes appearances for them, so he is affiliated with the ID movement. He doesn't seem to want creationism in schools, therefore he supports my point infinitely more than yours.

I will be back shortly with my definition of creationism for this discussion and we can determine if we can agree on one.
Let me clarify. Berlinski does want the controversy taught in schools. This further supports my point as he cannot be labeled as a fundie.

He is the exact opposite of your concerns (hysteria).
Here is a better definition using your template.

Creationism is a worldview that rejects "much" of modern evolutionary theory in favor of a transcendent creator.

The term "supernatural" is a red herring. If there is a transcendent being who has the ability to intervene in the world and cause events to occur that "seem" impossible, it stands to reason that labeling this as super natural instead of simply reality is a bit pitchfork and torches isn't it?

 

[River Jordan]

Berlinski is not sold on ID, he doesn't claim to be a believer and he doesn't think that Darwinism us true. This seems like the very definition of agnostic. He does however get paid by the discovery institute and makes appearances for them, so he is affiliated with the ID movement. He doesn't seem to want creationism in schools, therefore he supports my point infinitely more than yours.

Nevertheless, given that Berlinski doesn't advocate ID creationism, he can't be referred to as an ID creationist.

Let me clarify. Berlinski does want the controversy taught in schools. This further supports my point as he cannot be labeled as a fundie.

Sure, I never tried to label him as a "fundie".

Creationism is a worldview that rejects "much" of modern evolutionary theory in favor of a transcendent creator.

The term "supernatural" is a red herring. If there is a transcendent being who has the ability to intervene in the world and cause events to occur that "seem" impossible, it stands to reason that labeling this as super natural instead of simply reality is a bit pitchfork and torches isn't it?

No. Supernatural means outside of natural; transcendent means unusual. The resurrection of Christ was supernatural, not "transcendent". Jesus walking on water was supernatural, not "transcendent". God instantaneously creating things is supernatural, not "transcendent". Me scoring 5 goals in a game, 10 games in a row would be transcendent, but it wouldn't be supernatural.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I am invoking the theological definition of transcendent, which means outside of space and time.

God to me is natural.

 

[River Jordan]

I am invoking the theological definition of transcendent, which means outside of space and time.

God to me is natural.

If something is outside of space and time, then it is outside our universe, and thus cannot act within our universe (as soon as it does, it is by definition within our universe and by your definition, not transcendent).