A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 16)
42 PagesFirst 14 15 16 17 18  Last
on Dec 24, 2008

so entropy is not working on Earth???? and earth and its inhabitants are excluded from its effect????!!!

or  only evolution is excluded? ....

No, I am saying that you don't understand that the law applies to _closed systems_, that the earth, where evolution happens is _not_ a closed system, and that evolution does not happen everywhere in the universe (which might be a closed system). Entropy is working, but the law applies to _closed systems_, not evolution on the _earth_, which is _not_ a closed system.

Is that more clear now?

I realise that this is new to you.

You can learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Specifically, read this:

The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. However it is incorrect to apply the closed-system expression of the second law of thermodynamics to any one sub-system connected by mass-energy flows to another ("open system"). [...]

Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the science guys, not me. I don't understand the stuff.

 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

KFC, you are again making this into a Christianity vs evolution discussion. It may be that the majority of scientists are Christians, but that doesn't mean they support Creationism or "Intelligent Design

Not really Leauki.  That's why I said this:

Back to basics and the basic argument against Evolution needs not to argue on religious grounds. I don't have to say the bible says it so that settles it for me. Even though I think that attitude is a good one to have I also can look at good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in creation.

I also can give you the names of these very famous Christians who were Scientists and they did believe in a creator God.  You can read their bios.  Something has changed.  When I say everything is going towards disorder, that can be spiritually as well. 

Creationism has never been demonstrated in a lab and is hence no science. And that's all there is to it.

and neither has evolution from one species to another.  The fact that Creation can never be demonstrated in a lab should tell you something shouldn't it? 

on Dec 24, 2008

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the science guys, not me. I don't understand the stuff.

 

yes i have a major problem with that and i understand that "stuff" fully. I studied it throughly ... that is how i earned my Master and PE and that is what my job depends on. I use it all the time and whoever wrote that is just excluding "live" systems from all others on Earth while there is no single reason to exlclude it other than to support his opinion.

there is nothing "closed" in the absolute sinse of the term including the universe itself. However each self-contained system is considered closed for the purpose of studying its TD behavior.

and each "live" system is self-contained enough (just like other "non-live" systems) to be subject to the laws of TD. if you exclude live systems from that, you should also exclude every other system on earth.

that is what i mean by "selective" logic.

on Dec 24, 2008

sorry ... double posting

on Dec 24, 2008

yes i have a major problem with that and i understand that "stuff" fully. I studied it throughly ... that is how i earned my Master and PE and that is what my job depends on.

Great. In that case you won't have a problem understanding it.

Here's another article about evolution and thermodynamics:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/thermo.shtml

And I quote:

 

Order is energy. (That's what the Third Law says.) Disorder is a lower energy state than order (or rather, a state where more of the energy is useless). Information is order, and thus stored information is inherently a high-energy state. So the creationists say "The Second Law says that disorder will increase -- so how could evolution create more complex organisms without violating it?" Well, it's because that's not what the Second Law actually says.

The Second Law applies to closed systems and says that the average disorder in the entire closed system will increase with time. (It also applies to individual energy transactions, and to a lot of other things, but within this context it is its systemic aspect which is important.)

This does not apply to open systems. A closed system is one which has no energy transactions outside its borders. An open system has the ability to trade energy in various forms with other systems. A closed system is made up of component open systems, and the Second Law doesn't apply to an open system.

[...]

In any case, if the creationist interpretation of the Second Law was correct, a lot more things than evolution would be impossible. For instance, it would be impossible to breed. You start with two humans and end up with three. Looks like an increase in order to me -- obviously it can't happen. It would also be impossible for a child to grow: five years ago she weighed 20 kilos and now she weighs 35 kilos, which means we've created an additional 15 kilos of ordered mass.

 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

I also can give you the names of these very famous Christians who were Scientists and they did believe in a creator God

And what would be the point of that? I believe in a creator god too. What does that have to do with evolution?

 

and neither has evolution from one species to another.

There is no such thing as evolution "from one species to another". That's not what Darwinism says. Darwinism says that one species can evolve into two. That's not the same as evolving "into" another species.

And that has been observed in labs, whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

The fact that Creation can never be demonstrated in a lab should tell you something shouldn't it? 

Yes. And it does. It means that "Creation" is not a science and we cannot use it to produce useful things.

on Dec 24, 2008

darwinism is a bad name, darwinism make it sound like a religion, to a scientist it doesn't matter who said what. Darwin is given credit for coming up with the original idea, but each and ever scientist draws their own conclusions (oftentimes inspired by darwins ideas).

on Dec 24, 2008

darwinism is a bad name, darwinism make it sound like a religion

This pretty much sums up the whole problem.  I have a book about the death of Evolution written by Dr. Henry Morris, a well respected Scientist and founder of ICR.  Anyhow he wrote this:

A significant book by G.A. Kerkut was to the same effect, not completely rejecting evolution, but demolishing its arguments and insisting that it is not a "proved fact," as its proponents so loudly and frequently protest.  Kerkut also was a recognized scientist, and whenever a recognized scientist questions evolution, cries of anger, and denunciation quickly rise from the evolutionists' camp.  In a review of his book, John T. Bonner said:

"This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundations.  One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves.  It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.  The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla.  We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times....We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." 

More and more scientists and other professionals have been coming out of the closet rejecting evolution and taking a stand in favor of creationism.   A number of significant books have been published by establishment scientists who still believe in some kind of pantheistic or deistic evolution but nevertheless are documenting the scientific absurdities of traditional Darwinism evolution.  Such scientists include Fred Hoyle, Pierre Grasse, Michael Denton, Lee Spetner, Michael Behe, Soren Lovtrup among others.  These books contain a wealth of valuable data against materialistic evolution but unfortunately still reject creation.  In many cases the ID theory is a compromise between creation and the evolutionary theory. 

And that has been observed in labs, whether you acknowledge it or not.

There is NO evidence of evolution occurring at present and second there is no evidence that evolution has occurred in the past.  It is impossible to prove scientifically whether evolution took place or not.   The events are non-reproducible and therefore, not legitimately subject to analysis by means of the so caled "scientific method." 

So we  have to start with an assumption.  We have to assume that God is the Creator and Author of History or we have to assume that there is no God  and that the history of the earth and the universe is to be explained without Him.  So it all starts with our assumptions.  Because that's the starting point. 

I start with the assumption that God is the Creator and Sustainer of this universe.  I also acknowledge that God chose to reveal this to us.  It doesn't matter if we believe it or not. 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was created.  Period.

on Dec 24, 2008

actually i meant that darwinism is a name creationists use incorrectly. Evolution can't die because it is fact. Darwinism is a stupid name for evolution used by creationists who misunderstand, well, everything.

on Dec 24, 2008

And again, you give names "he said, she said" is not a valid argument in court, and much less in SCIENCE... Scientists don't CARE Who said what, only out of professional respect do they attribute first discovery to a single person or persons. Not out of an attempt to lend credibility. A theory's credibility is 100% based on the theory itself and NOT who supports it.

on Dec 24, 2008

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was created.

Oh there's plenty of evidence.  Look around you.  Came from somewhere.  We just have to go back to our assumptions and start there. 

Evolution can't die because it is fact

A theory's credibility is 100% based on the theory itself and NOT who supports it.

you guys need to get your stories straight.  Fact or theory? 

 

on Dec 24, 2008

I have to ask why you would say that creation is impossible just because some aspects of the design don't make sense to you.  If the eye is a suboptimal design, why hasn't someone made a better one?  We can't even come close to replicating the eye.  Anyway, it seems to be a silly argument to me.

Why don't you prove to me why these arguments are 'lies'?

I'm sure you're heard of the Miller-Urey experiment:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain

Then there is the fallacy of time being the great cure-all:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/figures.asp

And a little more math to show how absurd it is to think that evolution is possible:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i2/chance.asp

Maybe you think we're silly, but I find that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God.  We don't know if it is physically possible for a being such as God to exist (scientifically anyway).  It therefore makes more sense to believe in that possiblity than in something we absolutely know to be false.

EDIT:  I would also like to point out that creationists have no problem with the idea of microevolution, or the evolution of traits within a species.  It is macroevolution we have a problem with.

Oh, and look at this nice link I found on the inverted retina:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

Backup has arrived, KFC. 

on Dec 25, 2008

Evolution as a concept is a fact of life just as "gravity" being a fact.

Evolution's SPECIFICS as we understand it is a theory. Just like our theories of gravity, saying things such as "we measured earths gravity is 9.8 m/s/s" or stipulating the causes and the methods of working of gravity are all theories as to how and why it happens. (often time very well based theories that have plenty of proof to back them up). It's very existance however is a fact that anyone with half a brain can observe.

That is why every religious scientist (aka, people who are not funcitonally retarded) says that evolution exists, but it was set forth by god and is directed by him.. (kida like how when the bible says god stopped the sun in the sky? that was figurative, the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa).

Fact: Evolution exists.

Theory (atheist): Evolution occurs due to random chance and statistics.

Theory (christian): Evolution is a process directed by God.

Theory (atheist): Humans specifically have evolved from an ape.

Theory (christian): Human were created by god to look like they were evolved from an ape to test our faith.

Notice that some of the theories are laughable, but at least are properly reasoned. Which is proof that religion does NOT require you to be stupid.

on Dec 25, 2008

also... here is what evolution is:

Evolution:

1. there are genes (inhertable traits)

2. copying genes can be done inaccurately from one generation to the next, causing a change in genes.

3. more suitable genes allow a creature to survive, and thus are more likely to be passed on.

4. statistically the above means most species will have their genes change over time to suit their environment, however they would be rare exception, thats how statistics work)

 

 

When originally thought up, it was noticed that "there are inheratible traits", they did not know what genes were, or that they even existed. But it works out just as well.

42 PagesFirst 14 15 16 17 18  Last