Evolutionists Adrift on the Origin of Information

Scanning through Ellis's articles, his quotes attributed to Meyer, and the comment thread to date, almost all, including most importantly Mr. Meyer, miss the point of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life, what science calls abiogenesis; and it's not about the Bible, God, Jesus or any other belief system dreamt up by humans. Evolution is about how life evolved after it first appeared on the Earth. And like all science it's grounded in empirical data from the natural world and logical analysis. Any arguments that drift off into the Big Bang or God are simply irrelevant.

That said, evolution is arguably the simplest yet most profound idea science has ever produced. Darwin probably had no idea how robust it would prove to be. Since he first posited it, biologists have been hammering at it repeatedly, doing what all scientist do, which is to test it repeatedly and try to falsify it. Sounds simple. But try as they might, none has succeeded. Evolution as an overarching theory has only been strengthened by more data, knowledge and analysis. Genetics has confirmed it. Paleontology continues to confirm it. Microbiology has affirmed it. Evolutionary mechanisms that Darwin hadn't even dreamed of have been uncovered. And most significantly no data has ever been produced to falsify it. No, not even the vaunted Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer's home, has presented anything to challenge it. All they ever do is argue from personal incredulity, a position that may hold water in theology debates, since religion is all about belief, but which won't buy one a cup of coffee in the sciences. Show some facts and biologists will listen. So far Meyer and company haven't produced one fact.

Sadly, so far evolutionists haven't produced one fact either.

They have, however, produced a mountain of assumptions that they try to pass off as fact which would dwarf Mount Everest.

I've already repeated this so many times here it's mind-numbing, but I'll summarize one more time:

In the strictest sense, "evolution" is not about the origin of life, but to ignore that million-dollar question is the height of disingenuousness and self-deception. We know that life does not come from lifeless materials--it has never been observed, never been successfully tested and produced in the lab, and we know of no functional way in which it can happen (again, assumptions aren't facts)...which means life from lifeless materials is an unscientific principle and therefore (according to the ground rules set by evolutionists) is impossible...which means there could be no evolution because there could be no life.

Please, do us all a favor and take a serious look at what an assumption is and how it differs from objective fact, how what we think could have happened differs from what we have (a) observed in nature or (b) successfully established scientific principles of under test conditions.

As has been seen over and over and over and over and over again here, this simple distinction between assumption and fact is absolutely critical to understanding both the study of origins and of science itself.

Bob, please give me an example of a fact. For example, is it a fact that it takes a long time for a bone to be fossilized, or is that something you consider an assumption? Seriously, I'd like to know so maybe we can get onto the same page.

It is an assumption. We have observed objects become fossilized over a period of a few short years--far short of the millions of years assumed to be required.

It might interest you (again, if you have the slightest interest in real knowledge as opposed to maintaining your theological worldview of a random universe) that soft tissue and blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils that were ostensibly 45 million years old. The major problem (beyond the fact that something that old should have been 100% fossilized long ago): the collagen protein found inside the bone cannot survive even remotely that long according to science.

There is an article about that here at Dakota Voice. I suggest you read it and give it some thought.

Bob, you are known for the many people you have quoted verbatum that back up certain points you are making which is fine. You have claimed over and over that materialistic scientists believe that 'life came from nothing'. I am not talking about the inanimate to animate discussion, but the comments by you that say materialists/scientists state that matter or energy originally came from nothing. As you have been asked before, please quote or state one scientist that claims that matter/energy 'came from nothing'. You keep saying this is said, so who is it specifically that's saying it.Just a simple quote or statement or piece of evidence that supports your claim that scientists are stating matter comes from nothing would suffice

Are you seriously telling me that evolutionists aren't making that claim?

Yes. Evolutionists ( again talking about the evolution of the universe ) do not say that at one time there was nothing. Lets look at the big Bang which certainly has not been proven, but will serve as an example of WHAT and HOW evolutionists think. At one one time the universe was in the form of a singularity where infinite mass existed but had zero volume. Infinite mass ! that definitely is not nothing.

They simply admit that they dont know what happened or what was present prior to that, but not once do they claim there was therefore nothing. Lack of knowing doesnt mean they believe there was nothing prior to the big Bang. We didnt know what caused small pox at one time, but no evolutionist would say therefore nothing caused it. I think you are confusing the fact that evolutionists admit to not knowing what happened and equating that with the idea that they state that the universe came from nothing. Again, please show me where these scientists state that the universe came from nothing.

Actually, they do, or at least they used to openly.

Georges Lemaitre, whose theories in this area were foundational to the whole line of assumptions, indicated that the universe began with a singularity which at some point exploded outward and became the universe we know today; he also indicated that prior to this time, there was no time and space, and if there is no time and space, then there was nothing.

However, I know that evolutionists (and when I say "evolutionists" I'm including for the sake of brevity materialists and naturalists, since they usually share belief in the same fundamental theories about the history of the universe) have since realized, as I have tried ad nauseam to get across, that this belief was the Square-One Achilles heel in their entire chain of faith. They have since then developed other theories to try to patch this gaping hole in the ship of their faith.

Nevertheless, outside these wild theories (outright fantasy, to be honest), the common understanding is that there was nothing prior to this time. That is such a common understanding that to ask for "proof" of this understanding is akin to asking for "proof" that people generally understand that the earth orbits the sun.

But since we have reached the point where I think you're ready to start examining these flights of fancy (again, it's you guys who insist on "sticking to science") why don't you share with us some of these "scientific" theories.

Lemaitre was way ahead of his time and did state that before the singularity, that there was no time or space which reletivity and particle physics now also support. BUT, he or anyone else said there was nothing prior to no time or space.No time or space doesnt mean there was nothing. This is where you are jumping to a conclusion that scientists who believe that at one time time and space didnt exist that then there was nothing.You are simply wrong. We know that particles today exist out of the time/space continuum ( guage bosons and photons have no mass and function outside time and space )

If you believe that nothing could exist before space and time, that is your perogative, But dont claim that scientists feel that way because they know of particles forces that exist out of time and space that exist today, so they know absense of time/space DOES NOT mean nothingness.

How can anything exist without a place (space) to exist? Even particles need a place to exist (and you're only theorizing that particles exist outside the time/space continuum--you really have to get a grip on that assumptions versus verifiable fact thing). You have quite a quandary here...one that guesses and flights of fancy just won't fix (unless flights of fancy now qualify as "science").

I would say more, but I have to run out for a while. In the meantime, why don't you share with us some of those allegedly "scientific" theories about what existed before the universe did and where the universe came from.

"How can anything exist without a place (space) to exist?"

And you have just proven that there is no God. Thank you.

Shallow, Max. Very shallow.

You might want to review the comment from Dr. Meyer in the original article, and at least one statement I made on this subject as it relates to God's existence. Doing so might provide you with some insight into this seeming contradiction...that is, if you're truly interested in learning something.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that Dr. Meyer was stating absolute fact. I thought it was just an opinion of his.

Dr. Meyer says it, so it's TRUE! I get it now, thanks.

What was that again about assumptions?

So evolutionists are allowed to make assumptions all day long, and are even allowed to pass them off as facts, but it is strictly forbidden for a creationist or ID proponent to utter anything not 100% verified by observation and scientific experimentation?

Yes, that pretty much sums up the entire "rulebook" evolutionists have insisted everyone play by for decades. Convenient for evolutionists...but disingenuous and intellecutally petty.

If your whole playbook is "Don't pass off assumptions as facts," then yes, it is forbidden for you to make assumptions. It's called being a hypocrite.

Wouldn't it be nice if evolutionists would play by those rules? It's almost certainly asking too much, I know.

To my knowledge, I am not aware of any scientific theories that deal with what was present before the universe came about. Man was unaware that electrons existed at one time and didnt even know enough to even conceive of them. Your idea that since there are no theories,it implies that therefore there must have been nothing is coming from you. Science just says it doesnt know what came before the big Bang. Thats honesty

" Even particles need a place to exist". Some particles are massless and do not need a place to exist. there may wind up being many. many more. that is what the Hadron collider is trying to find. The question science is asking is could these types or particle forces have been present before the big Bang. They dont know, but they are pursuing it. It's called scientific research. Maybe science will answer your last question of telling you what scientific theories discuss the pre-universe . Maybe it won't, but it will still ask questions. that questioning also led to the discovery of the undreamed of electron of Newtons day. the concept of a pre-universe is foreign to you as would have been the concept of a photon to Newton.That has no bearing whether or not either could exist.

Actually there are several "scientific" theories that deal with what was present before the universe came about (and, interestingly, you earlier strongly implied that there were, but when I put you on the spot to tell us about some, suddenly you dried up. Very interesting, indeed.)

But more to the point of responding to your comment...

For all we know, blue elephants with polka dotted wings could exist. But do we have any legitimate, scientific foundation for believing they actually exist?

Unfortunately that is where "science" has found itself in it's frankly inappropriate quest to answer question that science can never truly answer. Science has gone far beyond simply trying to understand the universe around us, and into territory it has no business, legitimacy or even real ability to go: that being, to trying to answer metaphyisical and transcendent questions.

In other words, it has over reached and in doing so has devastated its own credibility. Essentially it's like a car mechanic claiming he can do brain surgery...or a brain surgeon claiming he can replace a transmission in a car, for that matter. I think frankly the scientific community realizes this on some level, but rather than facing the music and trying to operate within the proper parameters of what they're equipped for, they attempt to run from that reality by coming up with theories and assumptions that become wilder and wilder and farther and farther away from any real science.

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to grasp the difference between assumptions and verifiable fact, but that seems to be a never-ending recurrence any time evolutionists talk about "proof" of this or "proof" of that. Just because one can imagine something doesn't mean the subject being imagined is real or that it even can be real.

What is perhaps saddest of all is that most evolutionists are 100% oblivious to just how deep, deep, deep they have left behind the word of actual science and have gotten completely lost in the philosophical, theological and metaphysical world. And frankly, it can be more than a little difficult (and frustrating) trying to compare sight-seeing notes with someone who thinks they're in Australia while they're actually at the North Pole.

Whether it's the Big Bang or an event or multiple events that preceded it, science will try to figure it out. No one 'assumed' these ideas or theories until physics etc. progressed enough that it made these theories AT LEAST possible.That is not philosophycal or metaphysical, but it is simply where a scientific idea starts. It's called early data that could eventually explain a theory. You call that an assumption. Science calls it early and preliminary data that MAY be true.

No matter how far back science goes, no one can ever say a supernatural event didnt cause it. Now you have jumped to the metaphysical which science doesnt deal with

You may see that as science going to far off course, because you see it as science entering Gods domain and it's understandable that is threatening or blasphemous to your religious beliefs as geocentrism once was. Be honest, isnt that at the core or the basis for your opposition of science probing deeper into origins.Wouldn't you simply just like science to stop asking and probing for these particular answers.

Unfortunately I knew you would misunderstand what I said about "science entering Gods domain;" it's a mistake virtually every evolutionist makes. It isn't about blasphemy or threats to beliefs (geocentrism is not a Christian belief, however; secular authorities came up with that one); its a matter of being equipped to deal with the questions...and the answers. As I tried to point out with those analogies, science isn't equipped to deal with those big questions, and so it gets in way over it's head and ends up looking foolish as it has for many years now.

And you are very mistaken when you say or imply that evolutionists don't say that a supernatural event didn't cause the universe...because that is EXACTLY what they say. They refuse to even consider the possibility. And then cloak their intellectual cowardice and double-standard lofty statements about not being able to consider "that which is outside of science" (all the while building most of their theory on assumptions outside of science).

Look, I've done about all I humanly can to explain these distinctions to you and to others here. And sadly (unless there are some open-minded thinking people out there who have read some of this, been stimulated by it, and been helped by it), it's accomplished very little.

You can't teach someone something who refuses to learn, and that is the whole purpose of Dakota Voice: to help people understand better and to get beyond the pernicious lies that have been fed to our society as firmly established truths. Enough effort has been expended in this particular campaign, so the time has come to shut down this thread. I have family in town and I've wasted enough away from them.

I can only hope that, despite appearances, you will take something away from this that may give you food for thought and (as I once did, as a former evolutionist) you may eventually be able to see these distinctions. When you find the truth, the truth will indeed set you free.

Actually, the Big Bang isn't the "origin" of the Universe. It's just as far back as we're able to extrapolate so far. Once upon a time, we weren't sure how the continents had formed, then plate tectonics explained it pretty well. The origin of the Earth was eventually tracked back to a condensing nebula. The origin of the nebula? Debris from previous supernovas. The earlier stars? Hydrogen collected by gravity. The hydrogen? Leftover from the Big Bang.

The origin of the Big Bang? Not clear yet. That doesn't mean it won't ever be clear, though. There seems to be a long history of things that were 'obviously' caused directly by a God that later turned out to be not quite so. (Google up Neil deGrasse Tyson's essay, "The Perimeter of Ignorance", for examples.)

I could actually agree with most of what you said, Ray. Until you made the unfounded claim: "...caused directly by a God that later turned out to be not quite so." Actually, not a single thing has been proved to NOT be created by God; you're making the same mistake most followers of evolution make by confusing an assumption with an established fact.

Actually, you made another unproved assumption when you said "leftover hydrogen" came from the Big Bang. We have no solid proof that the big bang occurred...and if it did, why could God not have been the author of the event?

Well, you made yet another unproved assumption when you said "The origin of the Earth was eventually tracked back to a condensing nebula." That hasn't been established either. It is only a theory, an assumption. There is no written, visual or auditory record which proves that contention, and there is no direct evidence which can be extrapolated to reach that inescapable conclusion.

When you stop and think about it, it's truly amazing how much of what we accept as established fact is really only assumption, isn't it?

I didn't say anything about 'proved not to be created by a God', just not "directly caused" by a God. Taking an example from Tyson's essay: Newton couldn't analyze the orbits of planets well, and it looked to him like they ought to be unstable. So he explicitly wrote that it must be God that held them in their orbits. Then Laplace came along with perturbation theory, and, as he's famously supposed to have said about Newton's idea that God stabilized the orbits, "I had no need of that hypothesis." It's not that Laplace proved God didn't stabilize the orbits, he just showed you didn't require a God to explain them.

And, as Tyson's essay points out, a whole lot of things have gone that same way. I'm not really familiar with any phenomenon that was generally considered to be 'natural' that later on moved to the 'supernatural' column.

And, unfortunately, a "theory" and an "assumption" aren't the same thing. Theories make predictions that get tested. For example, if the solar system did form from such a nebula, then we'd expect a certain composition and distribution of materials, which we actually see. We see other, similar nebulas doing similar things. We'd see records of accretions and bombardments by meteors - which we see. And so forth.

At some point, it becomes perverse to ignore all the things lining up with this model, even if not all the questions have been answered.

It's true that God doesn't need to be "on scene and actively expending energy and focus" to maintain planetary orbits. He created those objects, the scientific laws that govern them, and set them in motion; no further intervention from God would be required, unless for some reason he wanted to exert super-natural influence on those objects in order to make something outside the normal operation of those scientific laws to happen. But in the end, this has little bearing on the topic at hand.

It's also true that a theory and an assumption are not the same thing. But theories are built on assumptions, some of which may become verified through observation and experimentation, while others may be disproved, and still others remain uncertain.

But again, you make an assumption that because we might expect certain behaviors from a nebula based on our very limited understanding of the behaviors of nebula, and that what we see in the solar system seems to be consistent with such theoretical activity, that a nebula has to be the source of the solar system.

It could just as easily be coincidence, or that God effected the creation of the solar system through his supernatural exercise of force on raw materials that he created, and that creative process bears a resemblance to what we think might result from a nebula. Or it could be pure coincidental resemblance. Or we could be quite mistaken about what we think might happen from a nebula.

I agree with you that there is a lot of perversity in this area, but what I consider to be truly perverse is (a) the fantastic amount of assumption and conjecture at the basis of evolution theory, (b) the double-standard applied to creation and intelligent design, and (c) the fact that this fantastic amount of assumption and wild guesswork is arrogantly passed off to the unsuspecting public as "fact."

"After all, everything in science tells us that it is impossible for life to spring from lifeless materials." Look up autocatalytic sets. Life springs from matter, and it is inevitable.
"“Who designed the designer?” who cares? It doesnt matter, it creates itself.
Existence preceeds essence

I am not intimately familiar with autocatalytic sets, but what I was able to find on short notice seems to indicate this is a theoretical concept rather than an established fact. In other words, more assumption versus fact--which, unfortunately, is what 9/10ths of evolution theory is made of.

The fact remains that life from lifeless materials has never ever been observed in nature or the laboratory. Evolutionists want people to believe that (a) something that has never been observed and (b) cannot be replicated or studied in the lab is science...yet claim the contentions of creationist and ID proponents are not science.

What a crock. Actually, what rank hypocrisy and intellectual fraud.

"what I was able to find on short notice seems to indicate this is a theoretical concept rather than an established fact."

Wrong, this is why you really should read Elliot Sober.

Oh, and let me just add this.

Given the long and dubious (I'm being extremely kind, here) record evolutionist have for trying to pass off assumption and theory as established fact, a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. In fact, several truck loads.

I'll do some more research, but I have to tell you: if a mechanism for life from lifeless materials had truly been discovered, it would have been the top news story of the century in every media outlet.

Yet today is the first I heard of the concept, and from a comment on a website?

As I said, I'll do more research, but as a mechanism for life from lifelessness, that dog just don't hunt.

You can learn alot about this from the webpage of Jack Szostak. He provides excellent explanations, animations, and references to peer reviewed literature that documents many of these concepts without resorting to name calling.

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

-Mark

Bob says: "The Bible was written several thousand years after the acts of creation, but it was dictated to the writers by not only a witness to these events, but the one who performed these acts."

Max says: I'm laughing too hard to respond. Bob, how do you know it was dictated? Oh, because it says so. Sure. How foolish I am to expect any kind of facts or evidence.

There is no direct external verification that God did indeed dictate the contents of the Bible to the men who wrote it.

But when you examine the claims made in the Bible, and consider that in the thousands of years since it's been written, and not a single claim has been disproved in all that time, that tends strongly to authenticate the internal claim that it's God's message. That includes all the scientific and historical claims it makes--many of which there was initially no evidence backing up the claims, but over time (and further archaological research and scientific understanding) many of those claims are now backed up by scientific and historical discovery.

No other book in all of history can even come close to holding a candle to that record of absolute veracity. Even your beloved "science" books get rewritten every few years as things scientists thought they knew turn out to be in error. If you follow the headlines, some aspect of historical and scientific "knowledge" get's revised on a weekly if not daily basis.

You can laugh dismissively if you want...but if you write off this highly reliable source of information (one that leaves your "science" books in the dust), you do so to your own detriment and intellectual poverty.

Um, Bob, there's been plenty that has been disproved (how big was Noah's boat?). Even the two versions of Genesis don't match. And if the Bible is so precise and so exact how come two people can't even agree on the interpretation? How come there's more than one Christian religion?

Are you implying that Noah's ark was impossible? Impossibly big? Impossibly small? You should do some checking up on calculations on the ark before you make embarassingly incorrect statements; I would suggest researching both the seaworthiness of it and its ability to house the required organisms. In fact, while you're at it, you might also do a little research on the fallacious assertion that the "two versions of Genesis" don't match (hint: there is only one version of the book, and assertions that a repetition of the creation account in two places "don't match" are based on a narrow and frankly ignorant misrepresentation of linguistics).

Also, contrary to your assertion that "two people can't even agree on the interpretation," vast numbers of people agree on several of the "interpretations." There are actually a number of ancient translations from the original languages, and a number of modern translations from the original languages. Perhaps if you knew a little more about linguistics and the art of translation, you might understand that--especially when dealing with languages that are thousands of years old, there are (as with anything) slight differences of opinion on the exact meaning of a given word or phrase. Idioms, vernacular and culturally familiar terms only add to the challenge. But I have read the Bible in several different modern translations (including the popular 400 year old one) and have found a remarkable synchronisity in content and meaning.

Finally, there is only one Christian religion. There are a number of Christian denominations within the Christian religion, but only one Christian religion. The reason there are various denominations is that, as is common in human beings, some consider certain aspects of Christian doctrine to be more important or more worthy of emphasis than others, and some which believe slightly different things about various doctrines of secondary importance. As with any text, two people can--based on their life experiences and preconceived notions--read a text and come away with some differing conclusions. Obviously one can't reasonably come up with a conclusion which contradicts the text, or one that is totally unfounded by the text, but as with any communication (written, oral, historical, scientific, technical, whatever), there may be slight disagreement on points and nuances from the communication. But all Christian denominations agree on the major tenets of Christian doctrine, and that is why I can easily work in religious/political projects and have friendships with Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, AG, Pentacostals, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and many more.

I have taken the time to explain this to you in the hopes it will help you understand something about which you have little experience, and I hope you won't disappoint the investment of time I've made here.

Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they need to find the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, where did the oil come from? If it was created in the ground, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton, but 10,000 times faster than any chemist thinks it could? A young Earth and a Flood would imply some interesting questions to ask, some extremely valuable research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why is no one doing this?

Ray, there is essentially no difference between the methods a creationist would use to find oil and the methods an evolutionist would use to find oil.

You seem to think there is some sort of difference in the evidence touted by either side. There is no disagreement on the evidence; a rock layer of limestone at x feet is a rock later of limestone at x feet for both creationist and evolutionists. An oil deposit at x feet is an oil deposit at x feet for both a creationist and an evolutionist.

What creationists and evolutionists disagree on is the interpretation of that evidence as it relates to how long ago it was deposited and the manner in which it was deposited.

Evolutionists believe oil was deposited millions of years ago and buried under accumulations of strata that occurred over millions if not billions of years. Creationists believe most oil was probably deposited during the time of the global flood when uncountable numbers of animal and plant organisms were suddenly buried under tons of sediment stirred up by the cataclysmic flood and probably aided by the volcanic activity which almost certainly accompanied that event. Some believe that oil is a naturally-occurring phenomena, however, though I'm not as familiar with the specifics of that theory.

In any event "flood geology" and "atheist geology" are misnomers based on highly ignorant assumptions. Neither has any significant disagreement about the location and composition of the geological layers, only the interpretation of how and when those layers were deposited.

I hope this clears it up.

Actually, there are indeed differences in how a creationist would go about finding oil. To find oil, you have to know where you should focus your efforts. To do that, you have to have a theory, a model. Where plankton and such was (which requires knowing the rough climate in the past, and how the continental plates have moved since), what sort of conditions would cover it, how long it's been there and in what conditions (heat & pressure needed to convert biomass to oil), where it might have migrated to after formation, etc.

Google up Glenn Morton's story for an example.

The point here is that it doesn't take much of a difference in effectiveness to be worth a lot of money to oil companies, mining companies, etc. etc. And yet, young-Earth creationism doesn't seem to have anyone practically applying it in the real world...

You just don't get it, do you, Ray? Or more likely, you don't want to get it.

I've done all a person can reasonably do to explain to you the difference between fact and assumptions, evidence and interpretation of evidence, but none of that seems to make an impact on you.

You can go on thinking what you want, but there's no point in me wasting my time trying to explain it to you anymore.

Bob, you haven't addressed Ray's points AT ALL. When will you stop avoiding the hard questions???

His point is simple: There IS a difference between where "Flood geology" and scientific geology say oil should be. Oil is way underground, right? A flood geologist would say "the flood would deposit oil here" and a scientific geologist would say "time, nature etc. would imply a deposit here." The two people would come up with different places.

Also, you might want to give the "difference between facts and assumptions" thing a rest, since you are all about the latter and none of the former. (Though I'm always open to the idea of you proving God's existence!)

Ray has no point. I have tried repeatedly to explain to him (and now you) that "flood geology" versus secular geology has not the slightest bearing whatsoever on where oil may or may not be found. I'm getting tired of repeating myself (most evolutionists are like talking talking to fence posts--nothing ever sinks in), so I suggest that if you really have any interest in understanding why not, re-read what I already told Ray. Then re-read it again.

I'll also give the "difference between facts and assumptions" thing a rest when you fence posts can finally grasp that rather elementary concept and stop trying to pass off assumptions as fact. Or I might just give give this entire thread a final rest, since you can only try to explain something to someone so many times before you really start to look like as big an idiot as they are.

I don't mean to be insulting, but good grief. It really shouldn't be that hard for an ostensibly intelligent human being to grasp the difference between what is essentially a guess and what is known. (But it does lend a level of proof to the Biblical contention that those hostile to God can become afflicted with a type of spiritual blindness that renders them embarassingly oblivious to what would otherwise be obvious even to a child).

"Meyer asked, “What cause, based on our experience, is capable of producing information?” The only such known cause is intelligent agency."

Rubbish! Gene duplication & gene divergence, symbiosis, and epigenetics are three well established mechanisms whereby cell/organismal complexity can increase. The fact that Dr. Meyer either does not understand this or willfully ignores it is sad indeed, but the rest of need not get dragged down by his ignorance.

"Gene duplication & gene divergence, symbiosis, and epigenetics are three [I count four!] well established mechanisms whereby cell/organismal complexity can increase."

Permutations and transference of genetic code does not constitute new information. I could take a copy of Moby Dick, tear out a few chapters and replace them with pages from Ladies Home Journal, but that would not constitute new information.

Your examples of symbiosis and epigenetics have little to do with genetic variation, no matter what we call it. Do you know what these words mean, Mark?

Dr. Theo,

No, it is three. Your counting may be off because you may not fully understand these concepts. A good short read is Maynard-Smith and Szathmary's book on the “The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language.”
Anyhow Gene duplication & gene divergence are parts of the same process. Let me explain how it works.

Instead of tearing out those pages from Moby Dick make ten exact copies (gene duplication) and then give them to ten people to make changes (gene divergence). If you give one to an English professor she may make changes that she feels improves on Melville's writing (others may disagree, this is what Darwin would call "selection"). Give one copy to a fourteen year old and he might add dirty words making it "funny". Most of us would see this as sophomoric but among his circle of friends it is probably hilarious (again a form of selection, but with different selective pressures). Give the other 8 copies to non-English speakers and they may make random (i.e. undirected) changes. Most will be negative and turn it into gibberish, some will be neutral (e.g. color changed to colour), and in a few rare cases it might improve the piece. In all ten cases there is NEW information, we may not have much use for it but it is new. That is not the problem and undirected mutations in DNA is a well documented fact.

The next part is what happens to this new information, this is where non-random selection kicks in (as it does in nature with the products of mutated copies of genes). If it is neutral it may get fixed in the genome (no foul = no harm). If it is worthless it may survive for a while but will soon be lost or further changed so that it becomes increasingly difficult to recognize. If it is actually “better” than the original it may replace the original OR if it does something slightly different it may co-exist with the original (think adult and fetal hemoglobin in placental mammals). A permanent gain in new information and new capability, this is how organisms “improve” over time.

As for Symbiosis and Epigenetics, thanks for your concern but I do know what these words mean and I understand how both can play a role in increasing the genetic information of an organism. I would take the time to explain it here but I have to go teach a class of AP Biology Teachers on how to approach the teaching of evolution in public schools. If you still have questions after you have read “The Origins of Life” book let me know and I will try to explain the concepts to you (and Dr. Meyer if he is interested).

-Mark

I am glad that you addressed my analogy of Moby Dick and I see your point, but I have one little problem with it; would you consider the English teacher, the fourteen year old and the others "intelligent" beings? Let me propose a more realistic scenario. My well-worn copy of Moby Dick ends up in the city landfill. Over time, the wind, animals, rain, etc. destroy some of the pages but other unrelated printed material occasionally blows into the wind-blown pages. Now someone comes along and finds it and, never having read Moby Dick before, decides to read the book cover to cover to see what it is all about. Do you think he would find it confusing at times? Do you think our "evolved" text has gained information?

I don't see how symbiosis and epigenetics relate to the conversation at hand. Neither play any significant role in the "evolution" of genetic information. Perhaps I am just not informed enough.

You have alluded several times to your credentials as a biologist and have asked me to explain what kind of "doctor" I am. OK, fair enough. I have a BA in Zoology and worked in the field of animal ecology for a short time. I then did about a year and a half working on a master's in microbiology but didn't complete my thesis because I then attended medical school (Illinois) and later specialized in Emergency Medicine (for almost 30 years). I still do some clinical work, but I mainly teach graduate level human anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology in a well-known university. I also help review and edit college text books for McGraw-Hill.

I hope that you agree that I probably am not the ignorant dunce you thought. But, frankly, I have known quite a few well-educated ignoramuses and do not think formal education automatically makes one opinion more valid than another. As and example, Mr. Ellis (whose backround is law enforcement) is very well informed on this subject and can hold his own against most Ph.D.s in a debate on evolution.

You should be careful about assuming others are stupid or ignorant, Mark. Some of the most ignorant people I have known on the subject of biology and evolution are high school biology teachers. All they know is what their textbooks tell them; textbooks intended for barely literate teens and full of errors and distortions as even ardent Darwinists admit.

Most of the original comment above was directed to Brett Allen but I mistakenly posted it as a response to Mark. My apologies to Mark Farmer.

Dr. Theo,

I think you are still missing some key points regarding the analogy of Moby Dick. First, I totally agree that the English professor and the teenager are “intelligent” agencies and that their editing of copies of Moby Dick (remember, for the time being the original remains unaltered and unabridged) is not indicative of what happens in nature. Instead it is the undirected altering of the copies that comes closest to mimicking the natural situation. And as I concede, the majority of these changes would be neutral or negative in their consequences. Only a very few could would result in a “better” book but this selection can have many forms. Does better equal shorter (think Cliff notes for students)? Is better mean in 21st Century colloquial English? Is better a happy ending in which the whale and Ahab become friends and unite forces with Greepeace? The possibilities are nearly endless, based on nearly endless permutations of the text.

With regards to pages from other books entering your damaged copy of Moby Dick, this is EXACTLY what we think happens with lateral (horizontal) gene transfer, something that appears to be fairly widespread among bacteria. And just as you say the results can be confusing. That is why reliance on single genes or single characters can sometimes ead us astray. Example : “Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. I once had a bitch named Mandy May. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation.”

Notice how the insertion of a Ben Folds lyric into Melville's opening lines are jarring, don’t seem to fit, and make us question whether both came from the same source. However if we read the rest of the book and there are not too many other strange insertions then a reasonable and educated person would conclude that the book was mostly written by Herman Melville as most of the remaining book would have his style and use of language. We could even figure this out if large portions of the book were lost to us forever (think fossils with no DNA here).

Symbiosis of mitochondria and chloroplasts played a HUGE role in increasing the genetic complexity of eukaryotes. Horizontal gene transfer, or DNA rearrangements from viruses (especially ERVs) have also played a huge role and can be thought of as a form of microbial symbiosis. Epigenetics has allowed for differential gene expression in multicellular organisms, again allowing for a tremendous expansion of genetic information.

“You have alluded several times to your credentials as a biologist and have asked me to explain what kind of "doctor" I am.”

Although I admit to having a Ph.D. in the field of cell biology I cannot ever recall having challenged you about either your degree or your intelligence. Indeed I cannot recall corresponding with you before. Are you confusing me with someone else? Hard to say since unlike you I use my actual name on these posts, not a pseudonym. In my comments above I am critical of Dr. Meyer but I did not think that the tone of my reply to you was disrespectful. Sorry if I have given offense, as I have tried hard to educate rather than insult. It was you who challenged me as to whether I know the meaning of symbiosis and epigenetics. I also try very hard to avoid using terms like “ignorant dunce” or “well-educated ignoramuses” (Were they directed at me?) Can you point to instances in which I have done so? Likewise I feel that my response to Mr. Ellis was civil and reasoned even though we disagree on several key points (I suppose that is why the moderator allowed it to be posted in the first place).

Finally I regrettably agree with you about the sorry state of science education in this country. The article by Berkman et al. 2008 (PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org May 2008 | Volume 6 | Issue 5 | e124) makes this very clear. That is why I give of my time to work with teachers so that they can more effectively educate their students and overcome their irrational fears of evolutionary theory. I don’t assume that anyone is stupid, although many people could benefit from more and better education.
-Mark

My apologies for confusing another's comments with yours, Mark. It truly was unintentional. I'll have to be more careful in reading comments when several are posted back to back.

I understand your analogy and explanations, Mark, but I just don't believe there is evidence to support such mechanisms, nor sufficient time even in billions of years for random occurrences to generate the complexity and diversity we witness in nature.

Perhaps symbiosis has a different meaning in the context of cellular organelles than it does in zoology.

The lateral transfer of extrachromosomal DNA via plasmids accounts for bacterial adaptation and even antibiotic resistance, but I still maintain that sharing information is not the same as creating information. New information of any amount and significance cannot come about by random processes, but that is exactly what you are proposing no matter how cleverly you hide the facts amongst technical jargon, assumptions and unproven (and untestable) theories.

Mark, I had a very unpleasant experience several years ago after I had written a piece for a web site (not DV) that some people took exception to. I live a very public life between my practice, my teaching and other activities. A small group of zealots decided to teach me a lesson and harassed me mercilessly for several weeks. They even wrote to my Dean a questioned my integrity and honesty. That never came to anything, but when Mr. Ellis invited me to write some for DV I eagerly agreed, but decided to keep my personal information private. I hope you understand this decision.

Again, I apologize for confusing you with another less amiable commenter. I agree that you have been civil, polite and rational in your comments and I thank you for participating in this very stimulating discussion.

Mark, um, who designed those genetic and biological systems--you know, the ones that operate on and transmit information? And, um, who originally authored said information which is utilized and transmitted?

Think about that for just a while...

Dear Bob,

I have actually thought about this quite a bit, long before you encouraged me to do so. Your question moves the topic from one of science into the realm of philosophy so I will try to answer from a philosophical perspective. I think that Dr. Meyer is trying to do the same thing with his book but he is not honest enough to admit it.

Logically we can keep pushing the question backwards in time. What created humans? What created life? What created the Earth? What created the universe? and at that point I, as a scientist, simply run out of data. A person of faith might answer all of those questions with "God did it" An honest scientist might answer "We have good explanations for the first three questions but as of now I cannot answer the question of what created the universe." But choosing not to answer the question does not make the scientist wrong or the creationist right. A scientist of faith (such as myself) might answer "We have good explanations for the first three questions but when it comes to the creation of the universe, I attribute that to God." So I choose to look at and better understand God's work (i.e. nature) as a way of understanding God's word. [You should really read the passage from Francis Bacon that Darwin quotes on the first page of the Origin of Species].

At the very lest I hope that I have convinced you that I have indeed thought about your question for many years. Now you have some idea of the answer I have come to.


-Mark

I'm glad to hear you've been thinking about this for years. Your earlier comment gave no evidence of that, however.

You are correct that questions concerning "pre-universe" issues are troublesome.

However, as I have pointed out before, an essential starting point (and ultimate test) for any theory should be whether that theory is logical and rational within its own framework.

The notion of a God (or god) outside the universe, who created that universe and who is not subject to the same laws and expectations of "scientific" behavior we expect of objects within the universe is logical and rational within the framework of the creationist/ID theory.

The notion that the universe (and everything in it) came about spontaneously and with an incredible level of complexity without intelligent design or guidance runs counter to everything we see in the universe; in fact, the more we study it scientifically, the more the only rational conclusion points toward intelligent design as the source. What's more, several key hinge points of the theory of a materialistic/naturalistic universe are scientifically impossible, i.e. we know matter doesn't come into existence from nothing, we know life doesn't spontaneously come from lifeless materials, etc. Therefore, a materialistic/naturalistic requires super-natural explanations...which renders the theory illogical and irrational according to its own theoretical framework.

A theory which requires its own key tenets be violated in order to work is utterly nonsensical. Another way of saying it is that it requires certain impossible elements to be correct.

Such a theoretical construct can neither be considered science...or even a credible hypothesis.

Apologies for the short reply but...

"we know matter doesn't come into existence from nothing,"

E=MC2 in other words energy and matter are interconvertable, the atomic bomb proved this. Perhaps in the begining there was only energy. Hard to say.

"we know life doesn't spontaneously come from lifeless materials"

I disagree. Not to say that we know this, but rather that we do not "not" know this. Just because it has never been observed or reproduced does not mean it is not so. The Earth was circling the Sun for billions of years before Copernicus figured it out. And 99% of all educated scholars at the time thought he was wrong, It took 150 years and Issac Newton inventing calculus to finally prove him right.

We are only now just 150 years removed from the "Origin of Species" Who knows what lies in our future?

-Mark

Some quick points:

- Energy isn't "nothing."

- If we have never observed life springing from lifeless materials, and there is no recorded instance of it happening, and there is no known mechanism or process for such a thing to occur, then science quite clearly tells us "it doesn't happen." I can theorize that pink elephants might be able to sing the Star Spangled Banner if tickled on the bottom of their trunks, but without some substantive reason to support such a contention, it's purely conjecture and not even remotely "science."

Yes, we are only 150 years from Origin of Species, and Darwin's work has been embarassingly discredited. He had no idea of the complexity of cellular structures, and the incredible evidence of design seen in their complexity makes his primitive assumptions look very childish. He also set standards of veracity (i.e. evidence in the fossil record) to authenticate his theories...and despite countless fossil finds across the entire globe since Origin of Species, support for his theories have produced a big goose egg.

Once again, assumptions and conjecture<>fact.

Everything thing in this article is culture war nonsense and a pack of lies. Science does not say anything about life spinging from lifeless materials especially without defining what the term 'life' is. Abiogensis is not evolution. And Materialists/naturalists/evolutionists are actually just scientists. No accepted science has supernatural elements. None. Ever. ID would not be regarded as science 100 years ago and will not turn into science in the next 1000. You can't have a scientific design theory without the designer being a sceintific reality. ID does not even try to describe their designer. It is just about pushing religion into science which is the Discovery Institute admitted purpose. Science ceases to work when untestable supernatural elements are involved. Also the information argument has been debunked a million times.

You are woefully wrong, Brett, and like others here today, you are transparently trying to avoid questions you know torpedo your theory. Let's pretend these problems don't exist so we can continue believing in an illogical, irrational and impossible theory that provides theological comfort.

You claim "no accepted science has supernatural elements," yet I have repeatedly pointed out here that materialist/naturalist/evolutionist theory hinges on super-natural elements. Key materialist/naturalist/evolutionist elements are impossible according to the laws of nature, yet evolutionists contend they happened, so if nature doesn't allow for them, then they have to be super-natural.

How profoundly sad for you that, despite being spoon-fed what you need to grasp the critical truths of this issue, you remain oblivious to them.

Can you guys give me a citation for an academic journal article or book that says life and the universe came from nothing?

Oh, I see we have another person who likes to play "Let's Avoid The Tough Questions By Pretending They Don't Exist."

Can you give me a citation from an an academic journal or book that tells us (not guesses) where the universe came from? If so, where, and on what basis is the claim (or guess) made?

"Oh, I see we have another person who likes to play "Let's Avoid The Tough Questions By Pretending They Don't Exist.
Can you give me a citation from an an academic journal or book that tells us (not guesses) where the universe came from? If so, where, and on what basis is the claim (or guess) made?"

Allow me to ask the same of you in your hypothesis that God did it. Also to where God came from. Come on, let's answer those tough questions!

I'm waiting for Brian to provide me with an answer of what was here before the universe that could have produced the universe (he is considerably more rational than most of the folks commenting here).

Once he does, we'll get into your questions.

1. Unless you can provide a citation for the universe coming from nothing I'm going to have to call that one a strawman.

2. To contend that science is a series of guesses on what cannot be directly observed betrays complete ignorance of the scientific method.

If all knowledge were the result of direct observation we would have no need for the scientific method. The theory of evolution, and the standard cosmological model use observation to develop a series of mathematical models that explain related observations and predict future observations. For example, the cosmic background radiation predicted by the big bang (for a full statistical analysis of this you might want to read Bond and Efstathiou of the Royal Astronomical Society). The theory of evolution, on the other hand, makes a series of predictions using Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms (Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin has some excellent work on this). By the way, MCMC statistics easily explain what you're terming new information.

The purpose of science is to understand and predict what we can not directly see by creating models and testing their ability to predict and explain new observations. A theory is refined or rejected if another theory better explains the observations (the need for falsifiability to make scientific progress). Currently evolution does an excellent job explaining observations among biological systems, and the standard cosmological model does an excellent job explaining astronomical observations. If another theory develops for either of these systems that better explains those observations and makes predictions about future observations then the current theories may be legitimately contested. But so far, I haven’t heard a coherent theory that better explains what we see.

Ben, if you can't have the intellectual honesty to admit that the theories of materialism/naturalism/evolution contend that the universe came into existence from nothing, then I'll have to call you "Done here" because I have no time or patience with people who refuse to admit a fundamental problem with their own contention and lack the intellectual honesty to face it.

You obviously either don't understand the difference between assumptions and objective facts, or you do understand but, finding that an inconvenient impediment to the advancement of an extremely weak and unsubstaniated theory, choose to ignore that critical distinction.

In either case, if you insist on avoiding the problem by perpetuating the fallacious contention that materialists/naturalists/evolutionists don't contend the universe came into existence spontaneously from nothing, I have no more time to waste on you at Dakota Voice. There can be no productive dialog with people who pretend a fundamental inconvenient truth doesn't exist.

Bob,
Based on your comment: "The Bible was written several thousand years after the acts of creation..." am I right to conclude that you are a you think the earth and universe are only several thousand years old? I just though you should know even the folks at the Disovery Institute try to distance themselves from Young Earth Creationists. I think they realize that denying the findings of biology is tough enough without also denying the findings of astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, archeology, physics, anthropology, geology, and several other discplines which point to a much older earth, and even older universe. You seem to keep retreating to the origin of the universe and origin of life which are both nascent scientific discplines. Research is ongoing, but as of yet no one knows. Yet, we do know quite a bit that tells us the earth is more than a few thousand years old. I'm just curious where you stand on this. How old do you think the earth and universe are?

I am aware that many ID proponents and even some creationists try needlessly and in vain to reconcile the Genesis account of creation to the unfounded assumptions associated with materialist/naturalist/evolutionist theory. However, when they're right, I applaud their efforts to dispel the fog of assumptions that surround evolution theory which are usually attempted to be passed off as "fact."

And to answer your question, there is actually very little compelling evidence that points to an age of the earth of billions of years. Almost all of the assumptions surrounding the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old are themselves based on assumptions.

People with a predisposition to assume the planet is 4.5 million years old look at the geological column and assume it took billions of years to be laid down; yet other cataclysmic events around the world that have actually been observed first hand prove that many varied layers can be laid down in minutes to hours.

Evolutionary thinkers are also on weak ground in explaining how rock layers in various parts of the earth are bent (not broken, not cracked, but bent). When the assumption is that these layers took thousands or more years to accumulate, there is simply no plausible explanation for rock that bends (something we've never seen), but in the creationist framework it's easily explainable.

Another key "support" for vast ages of the earth is radiometric dating. Unfortunately for the evolutionary thinker, radiometric dating is itself based on several unverifiable (and frankly incredible) assumptions: that the radioactive decay rate has been constant for millions of years, that there was no daughter-element contamination at the time the rock was formed, that there has been no parent-element contamination or leeching since the rock formation, etc. None of these assumptions are verifiable for even the last 100 years, much less a million or 100 million. Which might explain why many dating efforts of rock that we know through observation is only 30 years old or so provides readings of up to 2.8 million years old.

I can't prove creation any more than an evolutionist can prove his contentions (and I kid you not: evolution theory is on extremely weak ground). But a key test for any theory--before that theory even gets off the ground--should be whether that theory is logical and rational within its own framework of assumptions. The simple fact is, materialist/naturalist/evolutionist theory relies on several super-natural events (i.e. events which cannot happen according to the laws of science) at critical points (including square one), and according to a fundamental assumption of this worldview, supernatural forces cannot even be considered. The materialist/naturalist/evolutionist is therefore illogical and impossible according to its own key framework of assumptions.

It doesn't matter how pretty you paint your airplane or how many bells and whistles the instrument panel seems to have; if it can't even get off the ground, it's worthless.

Mr. Ellis, you write "that the radioactive decay rate has been constant for millions of year... None of these assumptions are verifiable for even the last 100 years...

You might want to look into the natural nuclear reactor that formed at Oklo about 2 billion years ago. It's not consistent with a young Earth, I'm afraid. If the rates of nuclear reactions were different when it formed and operated, it would have had very different results, and left very different remains, than we actually find.

And you know this natural nuclear reactor was formed 2 billion years ago by...yet another assumption.

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard for evolutionists to grasp the difference between an assumption and something which has been observed or otherwise demonstrated to be irrefutably and unquestionably factual. Evolutionist can have this distinction pointed out to them over and over and over and over, and most seem to remain incapable of escaping the whirlpool of assumptions.

Some people claim to need proof of the supernatural; perhaps this is it: otherwise intelligent people who can't seem to distinguish between assumption and fact. Intelligence is pretty clearly not the problem; I can only conclude it must be a spiritual form of blindness.

Actually, we know it's from 2 billion years because we've tested the assumptions. The other rocks around it fit into the geologic column in particular ways, radioactive dating of other rocks using different nuclear reactions (which would vary in other ways if, say, the fine structure constant were changing) give consistent dates, etc.

But let's assume that it's less than 6,000 years old. We immediately run into problems. The way the isotope ratios were modified requires the reaction to have proceeded basically the way it does today. Further, if the reaction were happening faster, it would have released a lot more energy, and melted the surrounding rock instead of just vaporizing the water into steam. Moreover, if atomic constants were changing, atoms that are currently stable would have been radioactive - and yet, we don't see evidence of such anomalous decay.

Another issue with decay rates changing - did you know that light takes light anywhere from 10,000 to 170,000 years to reach the surface of the Sun? If the atomic constants had been different in the past, the color and temperature of the Sun would be varying today. But we don't see that.

Yet another issue with decay rates changing - you know the argument that the laws of nature are so finely tuned that God must have designed them that way? Well, if the laws of nature are that sensitive, then they can't have varied so widely in the past, or else, ipso facto, life would have been impossible then. People can only use one of those arguments, so pick carefully...

Ray, I'll take one more run at this, and if you still can't or won't see the plain-as-day truth, there's no point in continuing a dialog with you.

You contend we've "tested" the assumptions surrounding radiometric dating, i.e. that the decay rate hasn't changed over the course of millions or billions of years, that we know exactly how much of a parent element was present at the time the rock was formed, and that we also know that no daughter element was present at the time the rock was formed, and that we know there was no contamination from external sources of parent or daughter element over the course of those millions or billions of years.

Well, you'd need a time machine to "test" or actually verify that (otherwise it's guesswork), and you'd also need to have monitored the rock over that entire time. I hate to break it to you, but none of that is possible. It might just be more fanciful than the overall theory of evolution itself.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about regarding light taking 10-170,000 years to reach the surface of the sun.

You sound extremely confused and you seem to have great difficulty in grasping concepts even when they are painstakingly explained to you.

I wish you the best, Ray, but I'm afraid I have no more time to spend trying to help you understand. I suggest you spend some time researching this issue at great length, and you have my best wishes for your success in that area.

1. They don't say that. There is a point where science says "we don't have the ability to understand what happened before a certain point at this time." Scientists don't try to claim they know what happened before the big bang, because we don't have the ability to know at this point. That is not saying everything came from nothing. Again, please show me where someone has said that if you're going to continue to make that claim.

2. Your concept of assumption, in this case, relies on a very flimsy understanding of statistics.

3. If you're looking for intellectual honesty, why was my comment removed?

Ben, I'd like to answer your original question about a citation that says the universe came from nothing. You might try researching Lord Kelvin and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I believe the answer is quite explicit.

I must say, I haven't had anyone bring up the Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms in quite some time. Granted, it makes for some interesting mathematics, but your claim that they have solved the problem of new information in life systems is nothing but sophistry.

Like so many on your side of the argument, obfuscation is your way of avoiding difficult arguments. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on my earlier comments on this thread, Ben.

I once had a wise mentor as I was entering the teaching profession who told me that I did not know my subject well enough unless I could explain it satisfactorily to my grandmother. Good advice, Ben.

Sorry about that. Your comment remained in the comment queue even after I had posted it to the website, so assumed the remaining comment was a duplicate (we sometimes get those) and deleted it. I have since restored it. But you do see, hopefully, what assuming versus knowing based on objective facts wtih no other reasonable interpretation can lead to. It can lead to the kind of irrational and illogical assumptions which are highly characteristic of evolution theory, and about the theory itself.

Unfortunately you've demonstrated that you are unwilling to even face the problem of the very first step in a long chain of events which must stand up to scientific scrutiny. I have no time for games or intellectual dishonesty, so until you can stop wasting everyone's time with avoidance games, no more of your comments will be accepted.

Censoring comments, eh? Intellectual honesty FAIL.

No, Ben. Governments censor. I prevent my readers from wasting their time on someone who cannot or will not be intellectually honest. I am also very busy on many fronts and need to make the best possible use of my time; wasting it on someone who can't even bring themselves to face and engage the pertinent issue at hand is simply a luxury I do not have.

Bob, there's a difference between "hard to study or test" and "by definition impossible to study or test." It IS possible to study the things you mention. Regardless, they are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species, not the origin of life or the universe. And evolution HAS been tested and HAS been witnessed.

Did God create the new swine flu? Did some other intelligent being create it?

"And evolution HAS been tested and HAS been witnessed." If you define "evolution" *only* as "any kind of genetic change," that's true. But that definition of "evolution" is not what's being debated. Creationists don't deny the sort of small genetic changes that have been observed; if you think they do, you don't know enough about creationism vs. evolutionism even to discuss the issue. But those changes are not "evolution" in the sense of "molecules-to-man" evolution; in fact, the nature of the observed changes (i.e., that they only remove & rearrange existing genetic information) is actually strong evidence *against* the idea of "molecules-to-man."

Really, Max?

How do you propose we even begin studying the origin of the universe...when no one was around then, and there are no written records of the event (well, except the one given by God in the Bible).

How do you propose studying how life comes from lifeless materials when in over 100 years of experiments it has never been observed even once? It's kinda hard to study something that never happens.

How do you propose studying how information comes about without an intelligent author when it has never been observed to happen? Again, it's very difficult to study something that never happens. You can play "what if" games, you can theorize, but you can't get a lot of study or scientific examination done.

You also shouldn't confuse evolution and small genetic changes within a type of organism. Through the reproductive process, organisms can change their dominant characteristics (i.e. color, size, etc.) but this occurs through the loss or recession of genetic information. Evolution requires new genetic information within the type of organism which eventually results in fundamental change in the type of organism (e.g. the fabled "dinosaurs to birds" theory). This is something that has never been observed--either in real life or in fossil evidence--a single time. (Which brings up another piece of advice that will be useful to you in understanding these issues: don't confuse assumptions and theories with objective, factual, hard evidence.

I notice you were pretty quick to run like a bandit from the question of the origin of life, too. Most evolutionists do. They fall back on the excuse that "Oh, evolution theory is about changes in life, not the origin of life itself." Uh huh. How convenient.

You know as well as I do that materialism and naturalism go hand in hand with evolution in assuming no supernatural causation or influence in the universe. Trying to compartmentalize in order to avoid a problem you know is insurmountable is intellectually dishonest. If you can't get life from lifelessness, you can't even honestly get to the question of changes in life.

Bob,
These things (origin of the universe etc.) can be studied and they are. "Studying" doesn't require witnessing. No one witnessed the creation of the universe or earth by God either. And the Bible was written quite a bit after the fact, by people who didn't witness it, right? If I walk into a forest and see a tree lying on the ground would you think I am wrong in saying that I believe the tree used to be standing? I was not there to witness either the tree standing or the tree falling, yet the evidence that it had, indeed, been a standing tree that fell is undeniable. Likewise, if I see a blackened, charred building it's reasonable for me to assume that a) it had once not been charred, and b) its present condition must be the result of a fire.

The motion of the universe is one example of something that's studied and leads to certain conclusions. If everything is expanding then it's a reasonable to assume that at one point it was all together, just like how you can look at a picture of a fireworks burst and reasonably assume that all of those sparkly particles came from one central object. Now, the answers to the origin of the universe aren't absolutely 100% solidly figured out, but that doesn't mean they can't be or never will be. I'm not aware of any evidence contrary to the big bang. And where did that matter come from? I don't know and I'm not up on that stuff enough to know whether there are any plausible hypotheses about it. If you want to say God put it there, fine, I guess, but for me I still wonder how a ball of matter floating in space is harder to accept than a magical fairy man with unlimited power.

The whole, "you weren't there to witness it" argument is silly and intellectually dishonest. Do you have kids? Haven't you ever scolded them for doing something that you know they must have done even though you didn't witness it?

An no, I'm not running away from questions about the origin of life. It's just that if you're talking about evolution, well, evolution is about EVOLVING, not STARTING. There's plenty of research going on about the origin of life. Look up abiogenesis. There are no hard answers right now. Are you suggesting that because we don't know the answer yet (we who until a hundred years ago were riding around on horses and still mostly believed that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits) that we never will? Are you really saying "Ha! You don't know the answer so evolution must be wrong!"? We also don't know how to cure cancer yet; does that mean there is no cure?

Also, you are wrong in saying "This [genetic changes required for "dinosaurs to birds"] is something that has never been observed--either in real life or in fossil evidence--a single time." There's plenty of fossil evidence; plenty of transitional fossils. Wiping it away with your hand, saying "Nu uh, that's not transitional" does not make it so. Science predicted certain transitional fossils and those fossils have turned up. Three that spring to mind are (as you'd expect) archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, and the recent ape ancestor (whose name I can't remember). Before, say, archaeopteryx was discovered, creationists said, "Oh yeah? Well if evolution is right, where's the transitional fossil from dinosaur to bird?" Before tiktaalik they said, "Where's the transitional fossil from fish to amphibian?"

Lastly, you say "Which brings up another piece of advice that will be useful to you in understanding these issues: don't confuse assumptions and theories with objective, factual, hard evidence." I sit and patiently await your objective factual and hard evidence for God creating the universe and life. (And the Bible doesn't count. It was written after the fact and by man. Divine inspiration? Well then prove that.)

"There's plenty of fossil evidence; plenty of transitional fossils... Science predicted certain transitional fossils and those fossils have turned up."

I hate to sound disrespectful, but it's amusing how faithfully you recite things you've been told but haven't really learned the facts about (or wanted to).

Darwinism (as opposed to real science) predicted untold numbers of fossils that would represent transitions between major types. But to this day evolutionists have to struggle to scrape up a very small number of fossils that can even be *represented* as such transitions. Not a single one can actually be shown to be such a fossil.

Archaeopteryx was a bird -- period. No one today seriously tries to pass this off as a transition between birds & reptiles (unless they're misled or have the aim to mislead).

Tiktaalik was a fish -- period. Its supposedly leg-like fins were farther removed from legs than your arms are from wings. It is no more a transition between fish & amphibian than the similar, and still extant, coelacanth is.

Name any supposed "transitional-between-major-types" fossil you wish, and it can be clearly & factually shown why is isn't -- and that's not just "nu uh, that's not transitional."

Evolutionism is not a matter of following the facts where they lead (ID, for all its inadequacies, is much closer to that). It is a matter of stubbornly interpreting any and all evidence as if there were no Creator, regardless of the difficulties & inconsistencies generated as a result.

You are correct that studying does't require witnessing, but there must be either some reliable record to provide a basis for belief, or something which can be scientifically tested and verified. Unfortunately for you, neither is available for the materialist/naturalist/evolutionist.

The Bible was written several thousand years after the acts of creation, but it was dictated to the writers by not only a witness to these events, but the one who performed these acts.

You are correct that by observing the current state of the universe, certain assumptions about it can be made. But those assumptions must first be logical, rational, and in harmony with other things we know about the universe. We know that matter doesn't spontaneously come into existence from nothing, and we know that matter does not spontaneously organize itself into complex states of order, and so on. So some very key assumptions which attempt to conclude an un-designed universe simply don't harmonize with other things we can study and test and verify.

It might interest you to know that there are other theories within the creationist/ID model which actually match with what we know of the universe much better. A couple of points: God could have easily created the universe from a single expanding point, and set the universe into a perpetual expansive mode. In fact, the Bible even says God has "stretched" out the universe.

I'm hoping by this point you may be beginning to understand the difference between assumptions and facts, between interpretations of evidence and the evidence itself, because both the creationist and evolutionist can look at the same evidence and interpret that evidence very differently based on different fundamental assumptions both make about the universe.

This is illustrated in your assertion that transitional fossils have been found (not a single one has, and intellectually honest evolutionists realize this). What you interpret as a transitional fossil may simply be a variation within a type of organism. For example, one might look at a fossil of a Beagle and conclude that it is a transitional fossil between a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound.

Do you see how the matter of assumptions and interpretations bear on the question of origins?

The real question then becomes: how logical and rational are the assumptions and interpretations on both sides, and how well do they match up with the objective evidence.

The simple, objective truth is that while evolutionary assumptions can be made to seem (without close and full examination) to fit the objective evidence, they often do not line up well at all, and frequently contradict other even more fundamental assumptions upon which the entire framework of the theory rests.

If something is outside of nature, then it is by definition, supernatural. The supernatural can not be studied or tested, therefore it can not be science; it is religion (faith). Intelligent Design is not science.

As Dr Meyer said, a design agency could be within OR without of the natural universe. To eliminate ID from inquiry based on the 'supernatural' premise (actually a religious tenet), is merely speculation. One possibility, yes, but not established fact.

Meyer also stated that the 'Big Bang' theory postulates matter from nothing, which would constitute an out-of-universe source, although accepted as conceptually and investigatively valid science. Then why not ID?

Max - You're forgetting one crucial thing about science: if an idea is FALSE (such as the idea that we were created by nothing), it cannot be scientific. The creator may fall outside what science can study, but he created the universe nonetheless. Therefore it is false -- and therefore extremely unscientific -- to deny that he did.

To go from "the supernatural creator cannot be studied by science" to "evolutionism is the only scientific explanation for life" is a totally invalid leap of logic.

Then neither is materialism/naturalism/evolution, Max. The origin of the universe cannot be studied or tested and has never been observed, therefore it cannot be science. Life springing from lifeless materials cannot be studied or tested (except to prove that it doesn't happen), therefore it cannot be science. Information spontaneously arising without an intelligent author cannot be studied or tested and has never been observed, therefore it cannot be science.

In short, key and pivotal elements of materialism/naturalism/evolution theory are flatly impossible according to the laws of science, therefore materialism/naturalism/evolution is an unscientific theory and is not science.

Interesting, huh?

Mr. Ellis, do you reject police forensics?

Since I used to be a cop and a detective, no, I don't reject criminal forensics.

And since I suspect I know where you plan to go with this, I'll go ahead and say that while they are an extremely useful tool in establishing certain facts about a crime, seldom can they, by themselves, establish guilt or innocence.

For instance, you may have a suspects fingerprint on an object in a house that was burglarized...but if the suspect has several credible corroborating witnesses who put him somewhere else at the verified time of the crime, then an other explanation seems in order (e.g. perhaps the suspect made a previous authorized visit to the house, or perhaps the suspect worked at a retail store and handled the object the victim bought, etc.)

Just as the guilt of a suspect can seldom be firmly established one one piece of evidence and the interpretation of what that evidence is telling us, so evidence in the world of science must be examined for harmony with other evidence. When you have contradictions and impossibilities, you have problems.

And unfortunately for evolutionists, the evidence presents a host of contradictions and impossibilities. No sane DA would go to trial with the "evidence" supporting the theory of evolution.

It's amazing that any intelligent person could accept the "we were created by nothing" hypothesis in the light of all that's known today. It seems a lot of other things get in the way of intelligence.

And it's tragic that so many are people taught, from an early age, that "all scientists accept evolution." The reality is that some scientists push evolutionism for philosophical reasons, some reject it based on the evidence, and the rest basically assume it's been proven by the work of others (because it holds no practical relevance to their own).

But you have no problem with an invisible God being created from nothing. The reponse is always "but God always existed" yet the fauthful can't believe the universe has always existed. Evolution is science and has stood the test of time for 150 years. God isn't science and can never be. Another name for materialism is reality. Yes science can only deal with reality and not faith constructs. Science is not an opinion.

Didn't you read the article? Dr. Meyer already addressed this. Hint: it really helps to (a) read, and (b) open your mind to a little truth.

My suggestion would be for you to go back and read what Meyer had to say, ponder it a while, and then come back when you're less apt to embarrass yourself.

Except he hasn't addressed anything. It hard to explain to the faithful that just believing something does not make it true. Nor is it true if you just like the idea because it fits with your faith. As for an open mind, ID can't be science unless you change the definition of science (which is the endeavor of the Discovery Institute which omitted to say Meyer is from). Thus it is not open minded to think astrology is science it is just wrong because astrology does not have scientifically provable concepts. I am a biologist by the way, so I think I know a little more on the subject than you. The embarassment is all yours.

Brett, I had entertained some home that since you had apparently missed Dr. Meyer's explanation, there might have been some slim chance for an intellectually honest discussion with you on this subject.

Unfortunately you have made it abundantly clear that our mind is completely closed to anything other than your religious beliefs about evolution theory. So much was abundantly explained to you, but it is sadly obvious that not a bit of it penetrated your mind.

Unfortunately there is no point in continuing a dialog when you aren't the least bit open to some rather fundamental truths that you have so far missed. Hopefully at some point in the future you will develop the motivation and ability to take a step back and question your own assumptions and their level of rationality. Until then, I bid you kind regards.

"...the rest basically assume it's been proven by the work of others (because it holds no practical relevance to their own)."


That is exactly right, DCM. Scientists not trained in the biological sciences assume the same degree of professionalism and integrity that they expect in their own fields and accept what the evolutionists say without question. I once had a long discussion about this with a friend who is a physical chemist. He was literally flabbergasted that so much of what he believed to be true about evolution was simply speculation with little supporting evidence. I don't know that I converted him, but he was genuinely amazed that a fellow scientist didn't buy the just-so fiction of Darwinism and why.

Werner Gitt, in his book "In the Beginning was Information," proposes what he calls the First Law of Information Theory stating that information can only proceed from intelligence. Although Gitt has been criticized for some of his mathematics, no one has yet proven him wrong about his basic propositions.

I touch on the subject of information theory in one of my classes and offer the following scenario to my students for discussion:

You are on a remote trail in the deep forest and trying to find your way back to town. Following a trail you come to a point where the trail splits with one path going to the right and the other to the left. It is a rocky area and there are loose stones scattered about, however beside the path on the left there is a group of stones apparently arranged to form an arrow pointing down that trail, presumably intended to help other hikers find their way out of the forest.

The first question is, what is the difference between the rocks on the left (forming an arrow) and the rocks on the right (scattered randomly)? The answer, of course, is that the ones on the left contain information and we can reasonably presume they were intelligently placed there. The next question is, is the information contingent on an observer? If there is no one around to see them, does that arrangement of stones still contain information? I say yes. There may not be another observer around for a million years but it still contains information that COULD be interpreted by an intelligent being regardless of the time interval.

Therefore, we can say that the group of stones on the left contain something that the stones on the right do not and we call that information. That information is intrinsic and independent of an observer, yet is not matter or energy or any tangible substance. We might say that information is something that exists outside the physical realm as we know it, or simply put, supernatural. It would be foolish indeed to insist that such an arrangement of stones is simply an accident of nature.

I am reminded of the time in 1977 when a SETI telescope detected what has been called the WOW! Signal. It seems scientists discovered a rhythmic signal that appeared to contain information. The natural conclusion was that it had originated with an extraterrestrial intelligence (remember the First Law of Information). It was later found to have come from a natural, non-intelligent source, but the lesson is clear—scientists accept the First Law of Information when the want to, but deny it when it leads to somewhere they do not want to go. I’m thinking here of the DNA code, which contains enormous amounts of information, yet scientists insist that it came about by fortuitous accident. Go figure.