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 18)
42 PagesFirst 16 17 18 19 20  Last
on Dec 26, 2008

O Heavenly Father, I pray that you save us from further pointless arguments about your beautiful creation, Evolution.  Amen.

on Dec 26, 2008

taltamir....no, sorry to disagree, but when one is a true scientist, there must be an antithesis to your theory. It is the nature of science. One must consider all possible outcomes when considering a theory. Otherwise, they are not scientists, they are just trying to prove something.  Science is based on lab, deduction, testing, and validation. In regards to some of the comments made on this blog, there has been no observation of evolution, on the scale of the origin of species. Adaptation is a part of life but it doesn't validate the concept of cross-species evolution...primate to human.

on Dec 26, 2008

That is exactly my point 

I really wish that you would read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics before you continue arguing.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

taltamir....no, sorry to disagree, but when one is a true scientist, there must be an antithesis to your theory. It is the nature of science. One must consider all possible outcomes when considering a theory. Otherwise, they are not scientists, they are just trying to prove something.  Science is based on lab, deduction, testing, and validation. In regards to some of the comments made on this blog, there has been no observation of evolution, on the scale of the origin of species.

Again, evolution has been observed in labs, as has evolution of one species into two (note that neither of the two is a different species from the original, just from each other).

Also, there is no need for an "antithesis". It's quite possibly for only one theory to exist. What's the alternative to the theory of gravity?

Anyway, evolution was been demonstrated in labs, and Creation hasn't.

But I am totally willing to consider experiments that demonstrate Creation. If you can arrange for an experiment in which some god (or a smurf, I don't care) manages to create two species out of thin air, I'll grant that Creationism is a science.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Hold on now...aren't scientist supposed to have a thesis and an antithesis. What is the anti-thesis of Evolution?

I think you are mistaking science for dialectics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics

Sometimes several theories compete with each other, and whatever theory explains the world most consistently is then retained.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

what exactly IS the anti thesis of evolution or gravity? the only anti thesis is "they don't exist", thats not a counter theory. As long as you are unbiased in trying to find proof that thesis is right OR wrong then you are ok. That is, if the thesis is not "your theory" but a case of "hmm i wonder IF such and such".

I find the very notion of a thesis is flawed though, it is badly explained and put forth, and only rarely necessary to justify an experiment.

on Dec 26, 2008

what exactly IS the anti thesis of evolution or gravity?

Taltamir, there is no gravity.

Nobody has ever observed gravity in a lab. The truth is that stuff stops falling before it hits the ground. Everything has been created by the god who created malaria at the exact place where we find it today. Things don't just "fall" towards the ground.

You cannot tell me that things just randomly "gravitate" towards the ground. Don't you know the chances of that happening, especially if it is to happen consistently and every time something gets loose?

Gravity is just an attempt by atheists to explain away the god of malaria.

I have a book lying on the table right here in front of me.

"Worlds Of Their Own, A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair"

If there were such a thing as "gravity" why is the book not falling towards the centre of the earth? If I can stop gravity with a simple table, how could it possibly cause things to fall down? It's just impossible. Use science, man!

And don't get me started about the planet being round! If it were round, how could it have flooded completely?

 

on Dec 26, 2008

THe antithesis of evolution is that we did not develop from lower primates and another rise of humanity must be considered. Gravity is not a theory yet even so, there is anti-gravity or 0 gravity. On Earth gravity is visible....in Space...there is an lack of gravity. Just like there is no such thing as cold...right...only the absence of heat. But, i will not be drawn into fruitless banter...I am entitled to believe in what I wish.....if you want to believe that your Great---------------grandpa was lemur...go for it!

on Dec 26, 2008

in Space...there is an lack of gravity

Be careful, there - your knickers are showing.

on Dec 26, 2008

THe antithesis of evolution is that we did not develop from lower primates and another rise of humanity must be considered.

Well, consider ahead.

Once you have a theory and can demonstrate ANYTHING in the lab, please tell us.

 

On Earth gravity is visible....in Space...there is an lack of gravity.

Well, I cannot see gravity, even on earth. But I am certain that there is gravity in space. The winter solstice is a funny moment to announce that there is a lack of gravity in space.

 

 

 

on Dec 26, 2008

In science there is a huge difference between fact and theory.  Theory is a hypothesis which has substantial evidence which says it is true, however it has not been tested enough to be considered a law.  Fact is more on par with said scientific law, which is the result of at least a decade of constant experimentation which proves it to be true.

Making such a basic mistake is very detrimental to your argument.  Also:

As I said, you are completely ignoring the fact that evolution has been observed in labs. 

Microevolution has been observed in labs, but not macroevolution.  As I said before, those fruit flies aren't changing into cats, so using it as an example of macroevolution is silly (which is exactly what you're doing).

Third, there is the concept of irreducible complexity, which Darwin himself said in the Origin of Species that it would prove his theory false if it were discovered to be the case.  Keep that in mind when reading the rest of my argument, as well as the fact that natural selection would discard anything that didn't immediately work, so for an eye to evolve, all the components would have to appear at once.

So, let's take that eye for example.  You have the retina, the choroid, the optic nerve, the cornea, the iris, the sciera, the ciliary body, and the fovea.  That makes a total of 8 pieces.  Giving each component a very liberal 50% chance of occurring, the chance of getting all those pieces together at once is 0.0039.

However, each of these components also consist of individual components.  The retina, for example, consists of the ILM, the nerve fiber layer, the ganglion cell layer, the inner plexiform, the inner nuclear, outer plexiform, outer nuclear, ELM, photoreceptors, and the RPE.  The chance of all of these coming together at once is 0.00098, still assigning a 50% chance to each component.

Each of the photoreceptors in your eye consists of 12 components, making the chance of it coming together at once 0.00024, 50% chance per component.

Mitochondria, a component of those photoreceptors, have at least 15 parts.  At 50% each, the probability of this occurring all at once is 0.000031.

Enzymes are one category among those 15 parts.  According to Wikipedia, a single mitochondrion contains "hundreds of enzymes."  Assuming that there are only 100 different enzymes at 50% chance for each to appear, that is a probability of 0.00000000000000000000000000000079.  Remember that is this a very gracious estimate.

Then there are the enzymes themselves, of which the simplest known is made up of 62 amino acids.  There are over 100 amino acids which exist in nature.  Even though only 20 are used for life, evolution doesn't know this.  Thus, it must choose the right amino acid out of 100, 62 times in a row, or .01^62.  Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

                                                                                                                                                      scroll over >>

I think it is pointless to continue any further.  The total partial probability I have gone through here is 2.24 to the -168th power.  Also, remember the Single Law of Probability, which postulates that anything with a chance less than 1 to the -50th power will never occur.  This is a very liberal estimate, and it doesn't even include a large portion on the eye's components.

Speaking of the eye, did you read that article I posted on the inverted retina?

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

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Microevolution has been observed in labs, but not macroevolution.  As I said before, those fruit flies aren't changing into cats, so using it as an example of macroevolution is silly (which is exactly what you're doing)

There is no "microevolution" and "macroevolution". There is no mechanism for evolution to "know" when to stop.

No theory of evolution claims that fruit flies would "change into" cats.

Your entire argument is silly and nonsensical.

I suggest you read up on evolution first, before you make stupid points like that!

You talk about probability, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the opposite of probability. By proving that something is improbably to be created as a finished product, you are disproving Creationism, not evolution. If you don't understand that, I cannot take you seriously.

(Also, if you want to learn about science, don't look at answersingenesis.org. It's a religious site, not a scientific one. I don't read Richard Dawkins to learn about G-d either.)

 

on Dec 26, 2008

It might be time again to list the three points that Creationists keep bringing up as weaknesses of the theory of evolution despite the fact that they have NOTHING to do with evolution:

1. Random chance.

2. Microevolution and macroevolution (as different mechanisms).

3. Origin of life.

If Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") were such great alternatives to science, why are all its advocates liars and idiots?

 

on Dec 26, 2008

(Also, if you want to learn about science, don't look at answersingenesis.org. It's a religious site, not a scientific one. I don't read Richard Dawkins to learn about G-d either.)

Of course Leauki, get rid of the Christian Science side of things to make your point and only listen to one side.  Answers In Genesis is backed up by many many Scientists, most of them very qualified and knowledgeable Ph.D's. 

When I went to the Creation Museum I loved the fact they gave both sides (secular and Christian) on almost all their exhibits.  You don't get that in any other secular museum.  Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive.  They work together quite well.  We just have a different foundation for how we look at the evidence than those who are trying to get God out of the picture.  We have the same evidence.  There is no difference. 

If Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") were such great alternatives to science, why are all its advocates liars and idiots?

no, you've got that backwards Leauki.  The Scientists who have a Christian world view make much more sense than those with a secular or evolutionary materialistic worldview do. 

Remember it was Darwin who wrote "Origin of Species."   Don't tell me there is no origins in Science at all because there is, has to be and we've discussed this already. 

 

 

 

 

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Of course Leauki, get rid of the Christian Science side of things to make your point and only listen to one side.  Answers In Genesis is backed up by many many Scientists, most of them very qualified and knowledgeable Ph.D's. 

Yes, sure. And even that lot cannot manage to remember that evolution is not about the origin of life. What a bunch of professionals that is! I am very impressed.

I checked. They have _three_ real scientists on staff. I looked at the thesis of one of them. It's about skin conditions. There is nothing that indicates that any of three know anything about evolution at all. (Which is of course the second requirement to be hired as a "scientist" by that institute.)

 

When I went to the Creation Museum I loved the fact they gave both sides (secular and Christian) on almost all their exhibits.

Science is science. It is not "Christian" or "secular", it remains the same, regardless of your religion. Both "Christian" and "secular" "sides"are non sequiturs, as we are not discussing culture or morality but facts.

Anyone giving both "Christian" and "secular" "sides" on scientific issues is a liar.

 

Remember it was Darwin who wrote "Origin of Species."   Don't tell me there is no origins in Science at all because there is, has to be and we've discussed this already. 

And I see you have remembered nothing again.

I said that the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, not that there "is no origins in Science at all". Is it too much to ask that you at least remember what I tell you?

What is so difficult about understand that the theory of evolution is NOT about the origins of life? I don't understand it. Is it so difficult to remember? What if you write it on a piece of paper and stick it to your screen? Would that help?

There are probably scientific theories about the origin of the universe and about the origin of life. But the theory of evolution is not one of them.

 

42 PagesFirst 16 17 18 19 20  Last