Irreducible Complexity, Occams Razor, and the Anthropic Principle for a New Year

There are three great concepts that one needs to process when thinking about the existence of God and competitive worldviews that endeavor to answer the deeper questions of life.

Irreducible complexity is an argument made in the discussion on evolution. While there are parts of evolution that can be substantiated (by this I mean, microevolution – one type of a sparrow evolving into another type of sparrow; contrast this with macroevolution, which I totally disagree with, that one species evolves into another species), this concept says that the origin of complex organs must be explained. Some organs require a minimum number of parts to work. The infinite number of small steps necessary for these kinds of developments is not likely in a strict evolutionary system. How do you account for the complexity of the human eye? Some living mechanisms are too complext to arise by the short steps required by evolution. There are many things that evolution cannot explain. Irredicibly complex organs is one of them. This fact alone wrecks Darwinism. Before you side with a Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, explain irreducibly complex organs for starters, and then work from there. Evolution doesn’t know when its done. It doesn’t know that it shouldn’t turn us into whales, or crickets, or ground hogs. With far more people around today than centuries ago, you would expect some mutations, some development of more complex organs. Where are they?

Occams Razor simply states that there are a number of possible explanations for something and that one should go with the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Even Carl Sagan advised to go witht the hypotheses that was the simplest. The best route from point A to point B should not be a zig-zag theory. Evolutionary atheists invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances in an attempt to explain our origins. Faith is not irrational, but offers a very clear explanation of how our universe and multiverses began. The vast majority of physicists admit a “Big Bang” that started it all, a First Cause.

Finally, the anthropic principle states that our universe was designed just right, so that we could live on planet earth. It’s as if someone “monkeyed with the physics”. It knew humans and life-forms were coming somehow. Modify the physics just slightly and we implode into the planet or explode off of it. It is precise; earth is a sanctuary of life.

We are irreducibly complex creatures, living in a world that was intelligently designed, with precise physics to sustain our survival. Faith is rational, even scientific, and yet some atheists describe it as a “mental illness”. The only thing mental about any of this is how and why human beings go to such great extremes to avoid the logical, succinct explanations offered by Christian Theism.

I agree with Dinesh D’Souza who argues that atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt; it is a moral revolt. Atheists don’t find God invisible so much as objectionable. Like a supervisory parent, God is in the way and must be removed, discredited (using the error-filled Bible ironically enough), and He must be shown to be a “mental illness.”

How about starting out 2009 with a new worldview? You are irreducibly complex in your make-up, living in a world that is balanced on a razors edge, and playing dumb to what you know to be true is no longer the best way to answer life’s deeper questions. There’s a better way in 2009.

Advertisements

34 Comments

Filed under Agnosticism, Anthropic Principle, Atheism, Atheist, Christian Worldview, Earth, Evolution, First Cause, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, New Year, Occams Razor, Theism, Uncategorized, Worldview

34 responses to “Irreducible Complexity, Occams Razor, and the Anthropic Principle for a New Year

  1. aforcier

    joey, are believers suffering from a “mental illness”?

    what would you say of a child who has been programmed by is parents, culture, country to believe in santa… and as time passes, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years, she/he and everybody, a thousand mile, around would still believe that santa is watching over good and bad?

    Now millions upon millions, still strong in their santa beliefs would do everything in their power to discredit and discourage any attempt at experiencing life without santa.

    the child/person would go to bed asking, praying, santa to be worthy of his gifts. the child/person could name all of the elfs, all of the reindeers, the size of their horns, the rate of climb of the sleigh… and a thousand more details that certainly points to the existence of santa.

    and please stay away from any a-santa
    (a-theist)!

    yes, joey, there is a santa.
    (can you teach me all about god?)

    http://www.ANaturalPhilosophy.com

  2. The New Atheists would have you to believe that religion has severely damaged society and the minds of many people. This is a falsehood. The crimes of religion are exaggerated. Sure, there are those who seek to methodically “indoctrinate” a child or a follower so as to manipulate or control. And yes, unmentionable things have been done in the name of world religions. But that being said, the worldview of atheism has done far more damage and harmful indoctrination than Christian Theism. Study the mass, methodical killings of humans and you’ll find atheism behind it. Indoctrination has worked both ways.

    I am also a non-establishment kind of guy in many ways. But I’m not towing party line because everyone around me says “Santa exists” and neither should you. But a far greater than Santa has self-disclosed. No one is making you follow Him. I am certainly not “staying away from a non-Santa” person. In fact, you are at complete liberty to live life like you want. God does not immediately reward righteousness and He does not immediately judge evil. You have free will and are not forced to deny because of expedience or to serve because it pays well.

    But true to the primary purpose of this blog, your “non-Santa” belief does not answer any of the deeper questions of life. Be a-Santa if you want, but you’ve not answered any questions that people care about.

  3. The fundamental questions are “why is there something instead of nothing?” and “how did this something come to include beings so complex?”

    The idea of God doesn’t answer any of the questions. Why is there a God instead of nothing? If the existence of the universe demands a creator, why doesn’t the existence of a creator demand someone who created him? If it makes sense to speak of a God that exists but needed no creator, then it makes sense to speculate that the universe might not need a creator either.

    Similarly, who designed God? A God capable of intentionally designing this universe so that life would evolve/survive/exist must be even more complex than we are, so theists’ problem of the origin of design is greater than atheists’ – even without evolution.

    Theism doesn’t provide an answer to any of these, but merely takes a number of unanswered questions and throws them in a big box, writes “God” on the front, and declares the box immune from all the questions that led to it’s invention in the first place.

    And of course, if I’m wrong on every point here, then I should be a deist, which is 95% atheist.

  4. It takes far greater faith to believe the evolutionary atheist’s explanation of how things came into being. Honestly, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. Occams Razor, a scientific principle, even substantiates Theisms explanation. God created. How he did it, and over how many days or time periods, and what the fossil records reveals – are all questions that science can help us with. But evolutionary atheism zig-zags and weaves a complicated theory of our origins, far beyond what is reasonable to believe. But theism asserts that an Intelligent Designer designed things and is revealed in what He has made (much like a painting has to have a painter and the painter is revealed in what has been painted). This world has been balanced on a razors edge, just right to sustain life. Evolution isn’t this smart or bright. It can’t spontaneously generate the complexity of a single strand of DNA.

    https://spiritualquestions.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/a-just-right-world-created-by-a-someone/

    God is more than an idea; He is an actual Person who inititated the Big Bang, the First Cause, the Supreme Sky-God. As a Person, He has self-disclosed. In this self-disclosure, we are given information (albeit sketchy at times) about who He is and what He loves and who He has set his affections on (that would be you and me). Now, we try to explain the Unexplainable. But we don’t have categories to think with beyond this dimension. So our First Cause, our Sky-God is going to be limited by what we know. But it’s OK. God transcends me and that’s OK. I don’t have to explain the Unexplainable fully to believe in His existence.

    https://spiritualquestions.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/can-an-atheist-change-ask-ebenezer-scrooge-this-christmas/#comment-493

    This God has self-limited Himself; he has allowed us humans to run much of the world, but He is obviously still at work within it (contrary to deism). But we still have a measure of authority within it. We are image-bearing, co-creators who mirror the Creator. So we make the call on many things, but this is not to assert that God is uninvolved, relegated to the cosmic margins. He is active in His world, embedding some great principle behind all that has been made. And of course, interjecting His Son into our history, so we wouldn’t miss Him.

    A theist should never pretend to have all the answers; but he/she should pursue as many answers as the evidence will allow for, embrace the mystery, but also celebrate what has been revealed.

  5. >How he did it, and over how many days or time periods, and what the fossil records reveals – are all questions that science can help us with.

    Btw, do you accept old-earth creation or common descent + intelligent design? Both camps typically introduce their position this way. (Or even theistic evolution + fine-tuning argument.)

    >I don’t have to explain the Unexplainable fully to believe in His existence.

    But you do need to explain who designed God to justify use of the design argument for God. Weaknesses in atheism are evidence for theism only to the extent that theism doesn’t share the same weakness. These “unexplainable” aspects of God mean that the cosmological and design arguments for God have a net weight of zero as the idea of God answers nothing. This would be the case even with a 100% refutation of evolution. If no one knows how something happened, one side’s ignorance is not evidence for the other side.

    Go back 2000 years – our ignorance of the cause of thunder doesn’t make thunder evidence for the existence of Thor. Science is not needed to defeat Thor-apologetics, although it certainly helps. Evolution wounds the design argument by showing how we do know how some of the design came to exist, but this is neither a necessary or sufficient rebuttal.

    (I find the way arguments for evolution have become so culturally connected with arguments for the existence of God to be an unfortunate source of confusion. They really are independent. Non-evolutionary atheist and Christian evolutionist are both coherent positions.)

  6. aforcier

    The existence of a creator “God” demands that time be – linear -. God created all and everything – we are here today going somewhere…

    But nature is instantaneous. its beginning, its middle, and its end happen in this instant.

    in the moment, this now, all that exists creates, survives, and destroys all that exist. (even divine stories).

    who created God? nature.

    (why is there something instead of nothing? exiting God’s closet awakens us to a magnificient nature.)( a nature that has answers… for it is the answer.)

    http://www.ANaturalPhilosophy.

  7. Return of Tofu

    Hi Joey, I’m back. Happy New Years!

    Let’s get right to it. Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution.

    Your example of the eye is actually a really good one. The eye is found in at least 10 different forms in nature, each with different elements and varying degrees of complexity.

    Proponents of irreducible complexity often say “half and eye is of no use” but this is patently false. Eyes are made up of disparate elements that work together, yes, but each element is not totally necessary. Having a light-sensing element, for example, is still an advantage even if you don’t have the aperture element or a lens element or a colour-sensing element.

    These elements may arise later through mutation/natural selection, if they are useful to the creature in their environment. Deep sea creatures have eyes that are much less good at focusing light than ours- they have no lenses- but they let in a lot more light. They are missing a whole element that you would consider “necessary” for an eye, but they’re still an eye.

    5 minutes or so of research would have given you this information. Once again you have displayed a lack of knowledge of the theory you are arguing against.

    Like the fact that there is no distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution. The question is one of changes over time. Many small (micro) changes over a long period of time result in large (macro) changes.

    If a sparrow can change into a different kind of sparrow, there’s no reason it couldn’t change into a different kind of bird altogether.

    Occam’s razor is actually a problem for creationists, as they are the ones who are adding unnecessary entities. The argument from design is just a modified first-cause argument, and as such actually explains nothing, as you haven’t explained the origin of the designer(s).

    You’re also confusing evolution with biogenesis again. Evolution describes how diversity in organisms came to be, not how life began.

    I don’t find the anthropic principle to be very convincing considering that 99.99999999999% of the universe is actually totally hostile to human life (what’s all that extra space for?). The fact that a tiny change could bring us to the brink of destruction doesn’t really lend credence to the idea of an intelligent designer- a really stupid one maybe.

  8. scaryreasoner

    “Proponents of irreducible complexity often say ‘half and eye is of no use’ ”

    It is especially funny on those occasions when they say this *while wearing eyeglasses*.

  9. Yikes. Where to begin?

    “There are many things that evolution cannot explain. Irredicibly complex organs is one of them. This fact alone wrecks Darwinism.”

    IC wrecks Darwinism through its definition: any biological system that could not have arisen by step-by-step changes. The latter, of course, is what Darwinism is. However, in your rather poor analysis you seem to conflate IC with simple observed complexity. The problem is how one goes about demonstrating that a biological system actually is IC. Nobody has successfully done that, in my opinion.

    “The best route from point A to point B should not be a zig-zag theory. Evolutionary atheists invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances in an attempt to explain our origins.”

    Darwinian evolution is actually a very simple concept. It is differential reproduction + selection pressures. There is nothing complex about that. The complexity lies in attempting to reconstruct that actual evolutionary paths of organisms – not in the theory itself.

    “Finally, the anthropic principle states that our universe was designed just right, so that we could live on planet earth…It knew humans and life-forms were coming somehow…It is precise; earth is a sanctuary of life.”

    Earth is sufficient for life, but it is not a sanctuary. Disease, natural disasters, and competition all combine to make life a rather difficult proposition. The majority of our planet is inhospitable to humans. This argument might retain some force if we didn’t now know how large the universe actually is – and thereby greatly increasing the opportunities it had for Earth-like planets to appear. The fact of the matter is, the Earth is an insignificant part of the universe. A grain of sand in a gigantic ocean. We are only fooling ourselves by suggesting that its vastness exists to serve us.

  10. God stands outside the series of causes, transcending creation, beyond this dimension, yet active within it. Infinite loops of explanations of the explanations are not necessary to understand that all things must have a first cause, something that stands outside of it, beyond it, transcending it, other wordly, and in the case of Christian Theism, One who cannot be explained and will not be subservient to our terms and categories and definitions. He has self-disclosed but remains a mystery. We are drawn to the absolute “otherness” of this Being, embracing mystery, and working from what has been made, we begin to get a bit of comprehension.

    https://spiritualquestions.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/the-first-cause-and-the-imagination/

    The creation of our universe/multiverse was a miracle. About 15 billion years ago, matter came into existence, or so the scientists tell us. This is not to say that the earth in its present form and shape, was fashioned out of this matter at that time. Perhaps millions of years later, earth and our universe were shaped and the whole concept of time and seasons was introduced. However long the creation event happened (literal days or seasons of time), He created from the existing matter that he also caused, and thus we share some DNA with other living things. Darwinists want to shut the door to this miracle because modern science is “designed” to exclude a Designer. Investigation should happen and we should never just stop studying, chalk something up as miracle, and shut the door in this way. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Science acts as if it’s the only way to know things and if it can’t be explained, it’s not valid. Huge mistake, and the door slams shut.

    I don’t see evolution wounding anything. Sure, variations within a species – not a problem. But not this species evolving into another species. Species are true to type. Evolution hasn’t even come close to proving this gigantic presupposition. Irreducible complexity teaches us that in the process of a fish becoming a bird, there are a minimum set of criteria for that organism to survive, a minimum of parts needed. Nature doesn’t favor this kind of half-scaled, half-winged creature.

    But man is unique, in that we are created in God’s image and are given authority over creation. Earth is the observation point in a multiverse cosmos. Pontificate, offer theories, suggests hypotheses, express what you know in common everyday language (Thor and thunder or like the sun setting/rising – even though we know this to be untrue), but don’t exclude the Designer, and allow the study of the design to inform our conclusions, without being positivistic and so called “bright” snobs.

  11. But nature does not yield morality, an appreciation for nature, and great works of art or pristine beauty, or converse about our origins. man is more than matter. anthropology teaches us that we are body and spirit. we have a conscience, an immaterial part of us, not bound by nature, nor dependent upon it. It survives, when our materiality decays.

    Be careful about loving anything that cannot love you back.

  12. Happy New Year to you too.

    Life exhibits features that cannot be explained by evolution alone.

    Irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution. A complex, life sustaining organ is needed for that organism to be sustained. A series of small steps is not tolerated by nature. These half-formed creatures cannot “survive” because they are not “fit.” Evolution itself is contradictory.

    And how does evolution know where to take us as humans? Who codes the new DNA? Each cell has a specified message (specified complexity).

    Think about this. A simple single cell creature… spontaneously generated from primordial soup… the cell mutated and survived a very harsh natural environment… evolved into a species that could swim… then evolved into a species that could fly… all the while surviving while scales are not feathers and feathers are not scales… and gills are not lungs and lungs are not gills… finding food… avoiding predators… and self-assembling new DNA… and reproducing these mutated changes….etc…etc…

    You have greater faith than I do.

  13. 20/20 issues are minor when compared to nipples turning into fluid filled pockets of cones and cornea’s, relocated on the head, attached to optic nerves and upside down reversal technology.

  14. Appreciate your comments James.

    Darwin himself acknowledged that irreducible complexity, if proven, could wreck Darwinism.

    What other planet has organisms to get diseased? Or humans that stand to lose their lives to natural disasters? Or plants, or aquarian/marine life to compete among themselves? What additional “earths” have been discovered by science that can sustain life as we know it?

    The universe is not man-centered; it is theocentric, with man as an observer of it, and with delegated authority within it.

    You are either…
    a descendent of a tiny cell of primoridal protoplasm…an arbitrary product of time and place, chance and natural forces…a grab bag of atomic particles, genetic substance…who exists on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in a corner of a meaningless universe, only slightly different from a banana or an amoeba…coming from nothing and going no where…

    Or you are…
    a special creation of a good and powerful God… who made you in His image…with a unique capacity to think and feel and know things…set above all other life forms…to observe all of the rest of creation…discovering how a world works…all the while, engaging this God in relationship… encountering His love… and changing the world for the better… and fulfilling a God-given purpose, minus the suffering eventually…on a new earth…
    https://spiritualquestions.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/what-is-heaven-like-making-even-an-atheist-homesick-for-home/

    I think Occams razor, and IC and the anthropic principle takes me to the latter of these two options.

  15. >Darwinists want to shut the door to this miracle because modern science is “designed” to exclude a Designer. Investigation should happen and we should never just stop studying, chalk something up as miracle, and shut the door in this way.

    No, the idea of God is designed to exclude science. “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.” Science works through testing ideas to see if they are true. The Bible excludes God from the process by commanding us not to attempt to determine if he is distinguishable from no God at all.

    Also, sometimes science has tested God. In a double-blind experiment, prayer groups prayed for patients going into surgery to see if it reduced complications. It didn’t. Of course, most religious leaders were all up in arms about how ridiculous it was to trying to experiment with God. Yes, yes, it is ridiculous to experiment with God. But to then turn around and gripe about God’s exclusion from science…

    Similarly, ID doesn’t want to talk about the implications of poor or cruel design. Theologians basically say that when science supports something they want to believe (design), it legitimate reasoning, but when it supports something they don’t want to believe (poor design), it’s not legitimate reason. Such gerrymandering of evidence deserves no place in science or any other pursuit of knowledge.

    Douglas Adam’s wrote an exquisite parody of how evidence for God is valid if and only if it exists. If it doesn’t exist, “faith” is the automatic cop-out:

    “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
    “But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. Q.E.D.”
    “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    “Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

  16. Return of Tofu

    The issue at hand seems to be that you think everything must have a cause.

    Yet you refuse to provide a cause for god. Why is that?

  17. Return of Tofu

    To expand on that- if god can be un-caused, that means other things may be un-caused. Therefore the universe could be un-caused. Occam’s razor tells us that it’s simpler to have an un-caused universe than both a universe and an infinitely more complex, un-caused designer.

    “I don’t see evolution wounding anything. Sure, variations within a species – not a problem. But not this species evolving into another species.”

    Depends on how you define species I guess. Wolves and Chihuahuas are both canines, but they can’t breed together. A mutation affecting the gene-pool of wolves will have no effect on the gene-pool of Chihuahuas. The gap between the two will continue to widen.

    You say that a species could not change into another species, but you’re pretty unclear on why not. A fish won’t magically metamorphose into a bird overnight, but incremental changes over a long period of time might yield the same change.

    Evolution doesn’t set out to “wound” anything. It’s merely an explanation of diversity. It has the side effect of reducing the number of gaps to fit your god into, but disproving evolution doesn’t lend credence to god, it just shows that our understanding was imperfect.

    “But nature does not yield morality, an appreciation for nature, and great works of art or pristine beauty, or converse about our origins.”

    Why not? What’s the evidence behind this argument?

    “man is more than matter. anthropology teaches us that we are body and spirit. we have a conscience, an immaterial part of us, not bound by nature, nor dependent upon it. It survives, when our materiality decays.”

    Except that damage to certain parts of the brain can cause alterations in personality, sometimes drastic ones. That seems pretty “bound by nature” to me.

    What’s your evidence for the survival of the conscience after death? Anything other than the Bible?

    “Life exhibits features that cannot be explained by evolution alone.

    Irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution. A complex, life sustaining organ is needed for that organism to be sustained.”

    Name an irreducibly complex organ, and show how it is irreducibly complex. I already showed you that this is not the case for the eye.

    “And how does evolution know where to take us as humans? Who codes the new DNA?”

    You still don’t understand the theory. Evolution doesn’t have a goal. There’s no peak to it. It’s not working towards something. The organisms most suited to surviving in their environment will survive, that’s it.

    “Darwin himself acknowledged that irreducible complexity, if proven, could wreck Darwinism.”

    And it’s far from proven, so what’s your point?

  18. All events need causes. God does not need a cause because God is not an event. What made God can only be asked if God is makeable. God is a being, a person, a Spirit, a bright shining light who simply is. He cannot NOT exist. He exists, uncreated, period.

  19. The ear can recognize some 400,000 different sounds within a span of 10 octaves or so and can distinguish between the subtle nuances of closely related musical instruments. The heart pumps about a million barrels of blood in a lifetime. The eye has more than two million working parts, and can discern a candle light from miles away. Several well-matched interacting parts contribute to basic function and if one part is removed, the whole part is jeopordized and in many cases ceases to function. What good is a retina by itself? or ocular muscles and no lens. the eye is a package. Yet Darwin would assert that the eye could not come as a package; that the eye parts each must be useful in some way by itself and performing a function in order for it to evolve in small, incremental steps.

    The complex organs represent the huge jump in the evolutionary process that Darwin and all Darwinists fear. To have such a complex organ like the eye means a Deity had to create it; no part could stand alone nor serve a useful function by itself.

  20. Return of Tofu

    “God does not need a cause because God is not an event.”

    Neither is the universe, or life. I was under the impression that you thought god caused these things.

    “The ear can recognize some 400,000 different sounds within a span of 10 octaves or so and can distinguish between the subtle nuances of closely related musical instruments.”

    Please demonstrate how it is irreducibly complex.

    “The heart pumps about a million barrels of blood in a lifetime.”

    Please demonstrate how it is irreducibly complex.

    “The eye has more than two million working parts, and can discern a candle light from miles away.”

    Please demonstrate how it is irreducibly complex.

    “What good is a retina by itself?”

    Detecting light so that the organism can: tell whether it’s day or night, find up in an underwater environment, or to tell when a predator passes overhead by the shadow it creates. That’s a few possibilities. This kind of eye exists in nature, they’re called “stemma” or “pit” eyes.

  21. Return of Tofu

    Here’s a really great article that explains it way better than I ever could: http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

  22. From Return of Tofu recommended article:

    Behe’s colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

    Living things cannot simply change piecemeal – a new organ here, a new limb there. An oganism is an integrated system. If a gill-pumping fish developed lungs, it would drown. Why? Because it’s “designed” for the water. Integrated systems don’t work very well, if at all, when one part evolves in isolation. The whole system must evolve together.

    The bat looks as if it evolved, for example, a mouse-like creature whose front toes developed into wings and skin eventually growing between them. But the first time it appears in the fossil record, it is fully formed. There are no intermediate steps to record. There is not one shred of evidence to suggests that this mouse-looking creature evolved though intermediary stages to become what we see it as today, and this after billions of years. Now why pray tell, would I believe that what this author is trying to suggest happened within a far more complicated organism, like a human being?

    Now, the eye – the light sensitive spot, moving to a group of cells cupped to focus light better, and so on and so forth, moving through these intermediary stages to produce the lens. And Dawkins goes on and on, zig-zagging, over Occams Razor, to create a complicated scenario and complex system in and of itself at each intermediary stage.

    Mr. Dawkins, maybe the eye is what it is because it was created that way. Just a thought.

  23. Return of Tofu

    “Living things cannot simply change piecemeal – a new organ here, a new limb there.”

    Didn’t you say you believed in “micro evolution” earlier?

    Anyway, there are these things called “mutations” that can indeed add new parts (or change or remove existing parts).

  24. Micro-evolution would not demand that I believe that irreducibly complex organs could be mutated though.

  25. “We’ve never had an adequate explanation” for the sudden appearance of bats, Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History in New York told New Scientist. “This sounds like a remarkable discovery.”

    Who or what activated the “digit” though? My sense is that they are reaching here…for these characteristics don’t suddenly appear from an activated digit. There would be some form of Darwinian mutation (which there isn’t).

  26. Return of Tofu

    The activation of the gene is itself a mutation, unless I’m misunderstanding something.

  27. I lift this from an article I read recently…

    Lack of Evidence for Evolution…

    No workable system for a naturalistic origin of life.

    Inability of evolutionary mechanisms to explain anything but minor variation in finch beaks and moth coloration.

    Rapid origin of nearly all animal phyla in Cambrian period with little or no evidence of ancestors.

    Early life is now known to not be monophyletic, a classic prediction of Darwinian evolution. Molecular evolutionists have had to invent a polyphyletic origin of life and massive gene transfers in earth’s early history to explain the molecular data.

    Despite the presence of a few putative transitional forms in the fossil record, transitions are rare (Darwin expected them to be everywhere). The invertebrate fossil record is virtually devoid of any transitional forms (BTW, invertebrates comprise around 90% of the fossil record) .

    The fossil record demonstrates stasis not a gradual process of origin for new forms.

    We see a lot of evidence for structures falling into disuse in organisms but no examples of new organs appearing.

  28. Return of Tofu

    Perhaps you could demonstrate why these are problems for evolution? I don’t see how “things aren’t exactly how Darwin said” invalidates the entire theory.

    The first one is mistaking evolution for biogenesis (again), and as far as I can tell the second and sixth ones are pretty much just false.

    In any case, some more detail would be nice.

  29. Return of Tofu

    Why would there be any transitional forms AT ALL under creationism? That really doesn’t follow.

  30. I have not read the book that this article presents, but would have interest in doing so after I read the stack of 50 I already have to read…
    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218247/k.C2A6/Icons_of_Evolution.htm

  31. Return of Tofu

    So do you have anything to back up your earlier statements or not?

  32. I take it that the book referenced in the previous comment addresses some of these issues and has piqued my interests. The points made earlier that you are referencing seem to be legitimate to me with no argument needed. If you are asking me if I have written extensively on these things and if I have substantiated each point, the answer is honestly a “no.” My point is that each of these points could be substantiated, based on my reading and learning. I think the evolutionist needs to explain them however- for they are proported to be weaknesses in their system. I have to rely on many people, scientists, biologists, and physicists as do you. But arguments can be made and submitted for review from a larger peer audience. I bring the perspective of theologian, some mystic, part linguist, and a dash of philosophy to my common sense viewpoint. Following what I know about facts, the points made are legitimate and worthy of greater consideration, whether I am able to defend them or not.

    Here’s what I would add however. Just like atheists come in many varieties, so do creationists. Many creationists are biblical literalists who assert without qualification the claim that God created all living things in six literal days. the Christian Theist need not subscribe to this narrow consideration. Science does have something to offer all of us, but it cannot answer all the questions. It helps explain the how, but not the why. It is within the rules of Hebrew grammar to allow for a period of time to stand for each “day”. this helps reconcile scientific data with Christian Theism. there are some issues though that would need to be addressed in an old earth, billions of years old scenario – with days standing for periods of unspecified time.

  33. Return of Tofu

    So you don’t have any sources that expand on these arguments? I’ve been searching for a while and haven’t really found anything saying why these invalidate evolution (and indeed some of them are dealing with biogenesis as I said earlier).

    The statements certainly do not stand on their own with no argument needed. For example:

    “Inability of evolutionary mechanisms to explain anything but minor variation in finch beaks and moth coloration. ”

    This is, from my understanding, entirely false. The person making this argument needs to explain why exactly evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient explanation. Just saying it is meaningless.

    If you could offer more information or a link or something I would be interested in reading these arguments (if evolution is false, trust me, I want to know), but I can’t really say much more with this little detail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s