Against the World - Evolution: The Foot in Mouth

Join host Jerry Johnson as he discusses some quotes from famous evolutionists that they now want to take back, during this week's edition of Against the World.

Evolution: Getting Rid of God

It's clear from Darwins own writings—he was a conflicted, tormented soul who suffered the fate of his own doctrines. In that sense, he's like all the other false teachers who have popped up throughout history.

If he's not a Christian ally, why do so many Christians join forces with his followers?

The evolving definition of evolution in Wikipedia

Dialogue with Darwinists

Marvin Olasky @ http://www.worldmag.com provides some key themes to remember on the 150th birthday of 'On the Origin of Species'by Charles Darwin.

Highlights:

(1) Darwinists who argue for macroevolution often give microevolution examples to "prove" changes. The famous "proof" of moths changing colors as pollution darkened trees was actually a fake, but it could have happened—and that would prove nothing about Darwinism.

(2) Bottom line: The makeup of the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA.

(3) If "irreducible complexity" is proven, Darwinian materialism is dead. If it's not proven, materialists still have to find some way to account for the existence of human life and a universe congenial to it. They mutter about the role of chance mutations, but mutations are rarely advantageous, and it takes far greater faith to believe that you or I could arise by chance via millions of mutations than it does to believe in the Bible.

(4) Let's admit that the Darwinists are right about one thing: We're in a predicament. We don't ask to be born, but here we are. We normally don't want to die, but we do. Not knowing why we're here, we look for hope. Christians hope in God saving sinners, but evolutionists must have faith in other things unseen to be saved from a sense of meaninglessness.

From his conclusion:

Let's have compassion for Darwinists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of an infinite number of universes. Many cloak themselves as objectively scientific, but that can't dodge even what secularists like novelist Kurt Vonnegut acknowledge: "My body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."

It's a Dead Man's Party: Charles Darwin at 200

Stand to Reason recently published an article on evolution for junior high and high school students, which appeared in Clear Horizon magazine. It was entitled "It's a Dead Man's Party," in reference to the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth this Thursday.

Below is the article that can be used as a resource for your young people. Take it and teach it. Or have your students read it. I think you'll find it very accessible for young minds.

Download It's a Dead Man's Party

Evolution: Observed?

From Creation Ministries International @ http://www.boundless.org


Molecules-to-man evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes.

A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees and people? Natural selection alone can't do it — selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don't carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn't explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

Also, natural selection by definition is the survival of the fittest, meaning those who leave the most surviving offspring. Therefore it requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So it is powerless to explain the origin of the vast quantities of information of the first self-reproducing cell.

For evolutionists there is only "one game in town" to explain the new information which their theory requires — mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the "recipe" or "blueprint" specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful — thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects. At best they may be neutral — having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying "the enemy is now attacking," which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to "the enemy is not attacking." The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to "tha enemy is now attacking" would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.

This is not surprising — an analogy: New computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams.

However, evolutionists believe that occasionally, a "good" mutation will occur which will be favored by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

Summary

1. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go "uphill" — to add new information.
2. The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don't effectively change the information, or the "meaning" in the code) or else they are informationally downhill — defects which lose/corrupt information.
3. The rare "beneficial" mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.
4. The examples commonly cited as "evolution happening today" usually involving adaptation by natural selection, are without exception instances in which the net result is a loss of information in the population — either by mutation or by way of reduced genetic variety.

Expelled, Evolution & Naturalism

Jesse Johnson @ www.sfpulpit.com presents a series on evolution and the recent "Expelled" move. He notes: “Expelled” is a documentary where comedian/actor/presidential speech-writer Ben Stein makes the case that scientists are suppressing evidence that shows that life has an intelligent designer. The point of the movie, which is now in theatres, is that evolution is a theory with more problems than answers, and is too unclear to be helpful anyway. Nevertheless, the scientific community is so defensive of evolution that any evidence to the contrary is simply not allowed to be heard. Instead, those that dare do research that support intelligent design (ID) are expelled from the academic community".

In outlining the format of the movie, he notes:

"The circular argument made by the scientific community and exposed by the movie is simple. ID is not science because no evidence in peer-reviewed journals exists. Moreover, no scientist can do research pointing to ID or publish any articles defending it because it is not science. The circle is both complete and impenetrable.

Stein compares it to the Berlin Wall; American scientists have freedom to explore anything they want, as long as they stay on one side of the wall and ID stays on the other. Anyone that violates this rule is fired, figuratively tarred and feathered, and driven into the wilderness. Meanwhile, scientists themselves have real questions about evolution that they are unable to ask for fear of reprisals. While our country was founded on freedom, this freedom is under attack by the scientific community (picture Stein walking through Arlington Cemetery asking if these men died in vain, and you get the picture)".

His first section concludes with a warning and an encouragement:

"This is not a Christian movie. Stein’s foundation is not the deity of Christ, and his push for theism is not a push to bow the knee to the creator of the universe. This is also not a fair movie. Stein acts like Michael Moore with interviews spliced together and simplified issues being dismissed with sound bite phrases.

Yet this is a helpful movie. Any Christian who has attended any public school at any level, be it kindergarten or grad school, can attest to the truth of what Stein exposes. Evidence for macro-evolution is practically concocted, and substantial evidence for ID is dismissed. Some of the best scenes in the movie have different evolutionists presenting Crystals and Aliens as possible sources for life on earth. This is more reasonable than ID, we are told, as long as the aliens themselves could have come from some Darwinian mechanism".

The second article in the series deals with: Evolution: Science or Faith?

Followed by Naturalism’s Missionary Zeal

Evolution

From http://www.twoorthree.net

Here's a bunch of recent creation/evolution news I wanted to summarize:

1. Antibiotic Resistance: Is antibiotic resistance evidence of evolution? Biologist Scott Minnich and other biologists think not and explain why.

ooooo

From http://www.twoorthree.net

2. Failed Predictions: ID the Future has a nice series of podcasts discussing the failed predictions of Common Descent (a.k.a. evolution, or macro-evolution). Enjoy:

• Part I - Casey Luskin of the CSC asks Dr. Nelson a series of illuminating questions: Is intelligent design compatible with common descent? What is his view of common descent, and how is it related to the origin of life? As the theory of common descent does not tell us whether or not the tree of life was designed, there are design theorists on both sides of this debate.
• Part II - Dr. Nelson continues his analysis of the evidence for common ancestry and how the theory is affected by failed predictions.
• Part III - Examining the single-tree picture of common ancestry and how this picture is affected by the newly discovered diversity of genetic sequences.
• Part IV - Descent and phylogeny.
• Part V - Phylogenies and data which seems to conflict with common descent. Nelson recommends weighing Darwinism’s claims with significant skepticism and moving from public rhetoric into the actual practice of the science.

ooooo

3. Science, War, & Darwin: ID the Future has a nice six part interview with x-ray crystallographer, biochemist, long-time neo-Darwinian skeptic, and former member of the Manhattan Project, Dr. Lyle Jensen.

• Part I - How Dr. Lyle became interested in science in the 1920's.
• Part II - Science during the great depression and WWII
• Part III - The Manhattan Project
• Part IV - Dr. Lyle Jensen describes his career in X-ray crystallography and his ground-breaking work in identifying protein structures.
• Part V - Jensen explains his doubts about Darwinian evolution, citing everything from X-ray crystallography and fossils to blood clots and academic brainwashing. He also enunciates his fears that commitment to Darwinian dogma is impeding advances in scientific discovery.
• Part VI - not posted yet (come back later ;)

ooooo

4. Bioinformatics and Evolution: Dr. Robert Marks has done work on evolutionary informatics at Baylor University, and in light of the need for information creation in the evolutionary model, often assumed but not explained, Marks has been led "to critically analyze a number of evolutionary computer programs that claim to prove Darwin’s theories."

ooooo

5. Ciencia Alternativa (alternative science): Ciencia Alternativa is a site devoted to "expanding intelligent design’s reach within the Spanish-speaking community." Hear an interview with it's co-founder, Mario Lopez. (NOTE: The site only works in IE, breaks in Firefox :()

ooooo

6. Darwinism Hinders Science: The Discovery Institute asks Did Darwinism Hinder Research Into Understanding Cancer and Diabetes ?

It’s turning out that this "mistake" of ignoring function for junk-DNA may have also hindered discovery of the causes of colon cancer. A news article from Science reports:

“Three independent groups have hit on the first common genetic variant that appears to raise the risk of colorectal cancer, albeit by a small amount, and which they estimate is found in half the world's population. Although rare genes have been linked to the disease before, this is the first evidence of common DNA--and also notable because it falls outside a gene, in so-called ‘junk DNA.’”

The Washington Post also reported that causes of Type II diabetes may be linked to malfunctions in non-coding “junk” DNA. How much earlier might these non-coding “junk” DNA causes of disease have been recognized had scientists operated under an intelligent design paradigm rather than a Neo-Darwinian one?

Evolution truly is one of the great modern deceptions. As I said, it is now on the order of a Mass Delusion. But the need for an explanatory world view is great, and people will often believe explanatory models without sufficient credulity.

Evolution for everyone - and everything

Review From http://www.twoorthree.net

In An Idiot’s Guide to Evolution, First Things author Stephen Webb discusses David Sloan Wilson's new book Evolution for Everyone (2007).

The dirty Darwinian secret is now out of the closet: If evolution is true, then it must be true about everything.

Creationists have long argued that Darwinists use their scientific theory as a cosmology, or "worldview," which they deny to the hilt, while all the time using it that way. But I think that they do so just to distance themselves from social Darwinism. But Wilson's book ends the farce, and admits that evolution is a way of thinking about everything that matters. Blech.

Here are some excerpts (my headings) from Webb's review of the book:

1. Why limit Darwinism to biology? By what logical/scientific rule?

Most Darwinians used to be very restrained about the relevance of their theory for cultural and moral issues, for obvious reasons. If evolution is true about everything, then randomness and competition are the foundations for the highest human ideals as well as the lowest organic life forms. Scientists have trouble enough restricting Darwinism to biology. What if that restriction is unscientific? What parents would want their children being taught that Darwinism explains not only speciation but also altruism?

2. Why Darwinian morality is a farce

The statement “The environment selects some beetles to eat their young” serves a function in biology similar to the function the statement “Nature is fallen” serves in theology. Both have explanatory power, but the biological statement tries to be descriptive, whereas the theological statement is clearly normative. Christianity teaches that nature is not what it God intended it to be, and thus nature alone cannot be a guide to moral behavior.

Without that normative claim, however, Darwinian philosophers are left with an environment that selects any kind of behavior as long as it gives a species a competitive advantage. If we do not eat our young when resources are scarce, it is only because nature has selected other strategies for our survival. It follows that morality must be either a heroic but ultimately fruitless struggle against our nature or a rationalization and mystification of self-interested behavior.

3. Darwinian efforts at peace can only come by enforced pluralism - i.e. the destruction of pluralism's dissenters.

“In principle, it is possible to completely eliminate violent conflict by eliminating its preferred ‘habitat,’ regardless of how rare or common it has been in the past.” He admits that a shared value system is a prerequisite for world harmony, but he thinks that “pluralism can be enshrined as a virtue and its suppression punished,” since “virtually any value system can be stabilized by rewards and punishments, as long as it is agreed upon by consensus.” If this leaves the reader thinking that Wilson embraces fascism as a way of enforcing pluralism in order to ensure world peace, he corrects this impression by arguing for the power of art to take the place of religious values.

4. If Darwinism becomes ridiculous outside of biology, what makes us think that it is not ridiculous inside of biology?

Perhaps Wilson’s ambition, which lies at the heart of Darwinism, has inadvertently demonstrated how empty evolution is. If it is this trivial when applied outside biology, why would we non-biologists imagine that it is deeper when it is restricted to biology? One cannot help but suspect that if evolutionary theory looks absurd, simplistic, and circular when applied to something as complex as religion, then it might look the same way when applied to biological organisms.

5. A syllogism on the vanity of the evolutionary perspective

If evolution is true about everything, then we are doomed to live in a world without truth, beauty, and goodness. If we are not doomed, then evolution is not true about everything. And if evolution is not true about everything, then there is good reason to think that it is not true about anything.

Four Problems with Evolution

This video, the first in a series that discuses the debate of creation vs. evolution, talks about the four major problems that throw doubt onto the theory of evolution.