The organic evolution debate is really based on philosophy and theology, not experimental science. This means that the debate can never be settled with current information.
The polemical struggles among Atheistic Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design seem to go on forever. One might imagine that if organic evolution were as scientifically based as its advocates claim, then any disputes could be settled easily and quickly by a few simple experiments. But after about 150 years, the conflict seems to rage more than ever before. Much of the difficulty stems from the inability of the evolution advocates to offer anything more concrete than creative speculation on the original source of life and on the source of our astronomically complex DNA.
The microscopic bandwidth for change inherent in the current theory of descent with modification through mutation of DNA cannot explain the explosion of life forms and structures within the relatively short lifespan of the earth. Evolutionists mock the "young earth" creationists, but they have their own problems with a "young earth," as they try to compress trillions of trillions of years of random changes into a mere 4 billion years. They speak of "deep time," but in the mathematical world of probability, a mere 4 billion years does not begin to touch the "deep time" required to accomplish all the inventions and specie differentiation of their magical evolution. Richard Dawkins seemed to acknowledge this problem when he suggested in an interview that aliens transferring life to earth might be considered a possibility.
One of the unacknowledged logical consequences of their supposedly unstoppable "descent with modification" process, is that there needs to be trillions of mass extinctions in order for the current set of species to appear unique and stable. The basic idea is that among a large population of a particular species, a few of those creatures acquire some superior traits. For those traits to become dominant, all other similar creatures must die off. This would logically have happened trillions of times in the development of the 10 million species on earth. This implies that the entire earth should be covered several meters deep with the bones of every conceivable creature. A large portion of the mass of the earth would be in bodily remains of various species. The "bears to whales" speculation should have produced some very interesting results. The other alternative is that we would see millions of similar creatures all alive at once, showing infinitesimal incremental changes among them. Since we see neither the almost limitless piles of dead fossils, or the nearly infinite gradations of living fossils, we must conclude that their speculation on this point is implausible.
By implication, evolutionists assert that the "science" of evolution is too important in the scheme of things to have to be held subject to the normal requirements of science, including experimental proofs and surviving experiments designed to disprove it. It is acceptable, and perhaps even required, to ignore probability, statistics, the second law of thermodynamics, even simple logic, to uphold their philosophy-based assertions. Evolutionists become disturbed when people say that it takes as much "faith" to believe the atheist creation myths of evolution as it does to believe the creation myths of Christianity. But since their most important assertions cannot be verified by common experience or even by complex and controlled experiments, it must be either "faith" or faith by another name, perhaps the "suspension of disbelief," that must be operating here. See http://www.EvolutionAtBYU.com for more information.
The polemical struggles among Atheistic Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design seem to go on forever. One might imagine that if organic evolution were as scientifically based as its advocates claim, then any disputes could be settled easily and quickly by a few simple experiments. But after about 150 years, the conflict seems to rage more than ever before. Much of the difficulty stems from the inability of the evolution advocates to offer anything more concrete than creative speculation on the original source of life and on the source of our astronomically complex DNA.
The microscopic bandwidth for change inherent in the current theory of descent with modification through mutation of DNA cannot explain the explosion of life forms and structures within the relatively short lifespan of the earth. Evolutionists mock the "young earth" creationists, but they have their own problems with a "young earth," as they try to compress trillions of trillions of years of random changes into a mere 4 billion years. They speak of "deep time," but in the mathematical world of probability, a mere 4 billion years does not begin to touch the "deep time" required to accomplish all the inventions and specie differentiation of their magical evolution. Richard Dawkins seemed to acknowledge this problem when he suggested in an interview that aliens transferring life to earth might be considered a possibility.
One of the unacknowledged logical consequences of their supposedly unstoppable "descent with modification" process, is that there needs to be trillions of mass extinctions in order for the current set of species to appear unique and stable. The basic idea is that among a large population of a particular species, a few of those creatures acquire some superior traits. For those traits to become dominant, all other similar creatures must die off. This would logically have happened trillions of times in the development of the 10 million species on earth. This implies that the entire earth should be covered several meters deep with the bones of every conceivable creature. A large portion of the mass of the earth would be in bodily remains of various species. The "bears to whales" speculation should have produced some very interesting results. The other alternative is that we would see millions of similar creatures all alive at once, showing infinitesimal incremental changes among them. Since we see neither the almost limitless piles of dead fossils, or the nearly infinite gradations of living fossils, we must conclude that their speculation on this point is implausible.
By implication, evolutionists assert that the "science" of evolution is too important in the scheme of things to have to be held subject to the normal requirements of science, including experimental proofs and surviving experiments designed to disprove it. It is acceptable, and perhaps even required, to ignore probability, statistics, the second law of thermodynamics, even simple logic, to uphold their philosophy-based assertions. Evolutionists become disturbed when people say that it takes as much "faith" to believe the atheist creation myths of evolution as it does to believe the creation myths of Christianity. But since their most important assertions cannot be verified by common experience or even by complex and controlled experiments, it must be either "faith" or faith by another name, perhaps the "suspension of disbelief," that must be operating here. See http://www.EvolutionAtBYU.com for more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment