Thursday, November 05, 2009 Last Update:10:12 am ET

Education|Fri, Dec. 21 2007 07:43 AM EST

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting the failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study materials on a PBS documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.

The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation critiquing the online materials from PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.

The presentation, entitled “Darwin’s Failed Predictions,” challenges an assertion made by PBS that evidence “unequivocally supports the theory of evolution by natural selection.”

"The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change,” according to Anika Smith, a contributor for the group’s Center for Science & Culture.

“Moreover, key postulates of Darwin’s theory – universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology,” Smith added.

According to the website, some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:

• The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
• The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution
• The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent
• The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code
• The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

In addition to Judgingpbs.com, the Seattle-based group has published a briefing packet about intelligent design for teachers in response to a teacher’s guide on the documentary that was issued by PBS.

Experts at the Discovery Institute charged PBS with injecting religion in the classroom through the guide with questions such as “Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?”

The documentary, which first aired in November, follows the federal case where a group of parents challenged the Dover School District’s requirement of teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The judge ruled in favor of the parents.

Contributors at the intelligent design group have regularly pointed out inconsistencies to the documentary through its blog site evolutionnews.org.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • 1 »
    Tue May 06, 2008 8:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    its hard not to accept evolution with all the modern evidence

  • Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    IDNO, I love how you say we did evolve, as if you went back in time and saw the primordial goo form the first cell, and then you saw it randomly mutate over the next billions of years. It is all fine and good to say the Discovery Institute has just put forth 100-200 year old information, it is another thing to prove it. Who said anything about a flat planet? People like to compare apples and oranges when making their points.

  • Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Dear readers: what the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say is not new, but a rehash of time-weary arguments for the existence of God which have been around for centuries. That you wish not to open your eyes and ears and explore the world you live in is your most unfortunate choice. There is a wealth of information that shows these points the DI makes have been disproven. Not so incidently, what exactly has the DI and its self-touted membership ever discovered? Nothing to date. They claim to do research but time and again its been shown to be inaccurate, unscientific in its approach, suspiciously uncertifiable. What the DI does excel in is quote mining, setting up organizations for falls, and peddling jibberish. They want a forum to peddle their ideas, free speech they claim, while they and their followers have trashed the name of the Smithsonian, and are trying to do the same at Iowa State. Free speech? Their adherents fired a long-time Texas educator for bringing to the science committee's attention that a speaker was a proponent of ID/creationism? They didn't jump to her defense in re free speech, now did they? Dear reader, the earth is not flat, and we did evolve.

  • Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    galapagos,

    I just wanted to comment on one thing. You said at the end that science can only use naturalistic explanations to explain things. (I have heard the same argument by historians who disagree with certain biblical accounts, but the evidence points obviously to the truth of the Bible) But what I want to ask is, if these disciplines rule out the possiblity of God doing anything, then they just turn a blind eye to the possiblity. For instance, lets just say that God did create the universe, and Christ did die and resurrect as the Bible account gives. Historians and Scientists would be forever unable to say that and only give the wrong answer for all eternity, that is silly.

    What is more, if God came to earth and created a huge mountain in 5 minutes in front of 1 million people and then He left. The next day by your definition, scientists would have to say, "Well we know God couldn't have been the reason for this, now let's see how it might have came so quickly naturalistically" and then historians would have to say, "God did not come to earth and create this mountain because we can't say anything about God, probably the President built it yesterday"

    My point is this, if science cannot answer these questions and will not, then why do I care, it is clearly biased and wouldn't (by its own definition) accept ID even if it was true.

  • Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I guess, ifeelfine, that I am an agnostic towards macroevolution. That just means I can't be 100% sure that it didnt happen. You know, I feel about the same about macroevolution as I would say of believing that nonliving matter randomly formed into a flying spaghetti monster (mind you it would have happened over billions of years!)

  • Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, I am not against evolution! I am 100% against atheistic evolution, naturalism, the idea that evolution happened randomly, without God. I am also highy suspect of macroevolution. ID means that you believe God created the world, you can be an ID proponent and say I believe in theistic evolution. But scientists will quickly point out that evolution (actually atheistic evolution) is based upon "randomness" and if God has a hand in it, then it is no longer evolution as they define. By the definition so-called scientists have given of evolution, it is impossible to believe in God and evolution, unless your god is not very powerful and actually useless.

    Evolution does not scare me in any way, it is a theory without fangs. But the implications of atheistic evolution does scare me, and it scared Darwin as well. Why, because there is nothing in atheistic evolution to stop us from decimating other races because we deem them inferior.

    The so-called predictions you list are not predictions, they are theories, theories that cannot be proven true. What homologies by the way? Between african apes and other apes? Or between African apes and people? What does that show? What kind of a prediction is that. Would I be an evolutionary genius if I "predicted" that my house cat and an african lion have certain similar traits?

    As far as why do I believe in ID? Because I believe it fits the universe and life as an explanation far better than the evolutionary (atheistic) theory does. Apart from that why do I think it is necessary to believe in ID if you believe in God? Let's see, the alternative is a universe that happened completely by itself and life that randomly became more and more complex all by itself, and then we just say that God is nice for something else.

    By the way, your or other scientists shear opinion that life might have spawned from different pools does not help your case. The chance of life happening randomly in one "pool" is already mathematically zero, so I guess random particles are pretty lucky at becoming life.

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG, You have supported my point. As the definition says, "Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life," not the idea of spontaneous generation, which was the belief that "held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain." Only creationists try to connect the two.

    And abiogenesis can be supported by evidence, as when early steps in the hypothetical process can be replicated in the lab, but it likely will never be proved or disproved. Nothing in science is ever "proved", because science is always open to new discoveries that could completely overturn current theories. Of course, these ideas have to be in line with scientific principles, and they must better explain the phenomenon being studied using only natural explanations.

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - The other question I have is why is believing in ID necessary to believe in God?

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Chris333 - I aboslutely agree with your statement about the Bible but that isn't what literal means and when Christians debate other Christians they use that word like a weapon. Some Christians talk out of both sides of their mouths and this is one of those instances. "I take the Bible literally, but not really literally." It doesn't work both ways.

    Evolution is not atheistic - it is science. It neither promotes nor denies the existance of a creator. I don't deny you ID as a system of belief (I hold to a theistic view of evolution - that God created the process of evolution to create everything - but I don't include that in my scientific worldview - just my Christian worldview).

    What I meant by the common ancestor is they don't know for sure if the formation of life happened just once or if life formed more than once in the "primordial soup" as you called it.

    Evolution makes tons of predicitons that have come true. Darwin himself predicted homologies with African apes and said that humans probably first evolved in Africa and he was right. ID makes no scientific predictions because its not science.

    I am a Christian (although some might not think so because I believe in evolution) - well then I guess my United Methodist pastor isn't and neither was the one before him because they both know the scientific validity of evolution.

    There is both the short simple answer as to why I am against ID being taught in science class and there is the more complex answer. The short answer is because it is not science - its not testable, it doesn't make predictions, there is no natural evidence to support it and there really isn't a scientific theory of ID.

    Thank you for the prayers - I have many vices and plenty of sin in my life but this is not an area that anyone should be concerned about for me. I would challenge you to think about why ID is so important to you and why evolution scares you so much.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have a serious question for you though ifeelfine, why do you deny ID? I think I have heard you say you are Christian before, or at least that you believe in God. I understand when atheists say it, because they have to defend their way of life and beliefs, but why are you against it? There is at least good reason to believe that even if God used some aspects of evolution for his method, it is obvious that it couldn't have happened randomly, and if you already believe in God, then why deny ID? Try to work it out and think about what the real issue for you in this is. I am praying for you.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By all means I do not propose a "God of the gaps" anymore than an atheistic evolution believing individual would say "I propose macroevolution of the gaps, if there is any discrepancy just say 'MUTATION'" You have misunderstood my comments. I do not know that I interpret the Bible the same as "the rest of us" either. When I say literal I mean that you can fully believe in the Bible, that every message within it has real ultimate and true meanings for us in it, and that the Bible is Historically accurate. As far as Creation goes, I do not believe that we must assume the 6 days mean actual days like the ones we experience now (after all the first day there was no sun so it couldn't have been the same as our days) However I would not say that any part of the Bible needs to be "reinterpreted" or remade into something that fits modern societies values or beliefs.

    As far as telling me that I am wrong about evolution's claims of ancestors I don't see what you are telling me I am wrong about? Your statement seemed to suggest that there are both one and several ancestors? Originally there was only one, sure later (according to evolution theory) they broke off, but ultimately we came from the puddle of goo.

    And finally I am a little confused by your last question. What do you mean by predictions? Is that predicting the future? Or predicting what we will find in the future? Or predicting something else? For that matter what predictions does atheistic evolution make? That some day the superior human race will kill off all the rest and then evolve into X-men? Or do you mean like that of Darwin who knew that the fossil record did not support his theory and he predicted that later discoveries would change that (but actually they didn't)? What is wrong with saying, "Right now due to the nature of the universe and complexity of life and the knowledge we have now, it seems the best answer is an intelligent force behind it, and we predict that later evidence will further corroborate this", as many have said?

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What predictions does intelligent design make? Anyone? A true scientific theory makes predictions - what predicitions does ID make?

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - By the way, you are wrong. All living things might only have one ancestor according to evolution but there might be a few.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - Finally an honest statement from you about the literalism of the Bible - you interpret scripture just like the rest of us. I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old (I believe it is about 4.5 billion years old but not sure, would have to check the evidence). If someone did literally interpret the Bible I might have some respect for them but none of us do, some claim that they do but no one does. We all do the best we can and follow where the Spirit leads us.

    I do have to say though what I find most insulting about the arguments you and others put forth regarding evolution is that you turn God into a "God of the gaps" and that takes the wonder and awesomeness of God out of the equation.

    In any case, your most recent comment isn't evolution. Evolution isn't the study of "no life to life," it deals with the transition of life.

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Hey hey, Question!

    What is the difference in the probability of nonliving matter coming together to form life by itself and the same thing happening on the head of a pin? Trick question, they are both mathematically ZERO!

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hold on a second Merkin, I said that I suppose it could happen, not that it ever has or ever will. You would have to take it on faith.

    ifeelfine,

    You can, if by literal you mean believing every word of the Bible as true. For instance, we do not have to believe that there ever existed a prodigal son in order to believe in the Bible 100%. If by literal you mean taking every statement, every idea, and every word in the Bible as exactly literal, without taking into consideration context and the time/place/language it was written in, then I would say it is impossible to take the Bible "literally" as you have defined. But we have to understand that the Bible was never written to be taken that way. Satan did that when he tried to temp Jesus. Nonetheless, Christ clearly approved of the scriptures.

    Also, I missed Baron's comment earlier, he said, "I disagree that Talk Origins is anti-creationist..." The homepage of Talk Origins says, "Exploring the creation/evolution debate" And then they go on to only talk about how creation is wrong and evolution is right. I could point out a dozen websites that say something along the same lines and then go pro-creation in their arguments, and you would not call the pro-science, you would call them pro-creation (which means by obvious logic that it is anti-evolution) Thanks for your comment though.

    And thanks everyone for your comments and criticisms, it really has been helping me develop my thinking and see flaws in my ideas, which is always good.

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    QUESTION:

    What is the difference between discussing biblical interpretation and the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin?

    ANSWER:

    As far as I can tell, not much.

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - You cannot be "a literal Bible believing Christian" and believe the earth is more than 6000 years old. That's what believing in the Bible literally means, you read it and literally what it says is true. According to a literal reading of the Bible, the earth is 6000 years old.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 writes:
    "I am not sure about this, but it could be possible that through enough microevolutions a cat might not be able to breed with a distant enough breed of cat, and then I suppose it would be a new species by definition...but the fact remains that it is still just a really different kind of cat."

    Exactly right, Chris. But can't you see that this extremely "different kind of cat" could then continue (via natural selection) to be more and more different still, until, perhaps many thousands of generations later, you have an animal that can no longer be classified as a cat at all.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha,

    I was not saying that I do or do not believe in a young earth. What I said is that you could be a literal Bible believing Christian, without believing the earth is young. It does not have to be many days between 1 and 2 or so on in the Bible. It could be that each "Day" represents a period of time. Another possibility is the appearance of age. For instance Adam was not a little baby when God created him, he was probably a young man, yet at the same time he was one day old. Take that and apply it to the rest of Creation. As far as death not entering the world, as far as I can see the punishment was only given to humans, it could be that other plants and animals did die before. We know plants must have because Adam and Eve ate plants. I think another possible explanation is that it is spiritual death, a death to the life we lived with God.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine...

    All things have one ancestor according to evolution, it is the primordial soup. You and I and the elephant and the frog, our great great....great grandfather is the primordial soup. But hey we could have had seperate primordial soup grandfathers, thus making the probability of evolution more zero. Give me the example of a new species coming into being. I think you are mistaken here. NO macro is not a whole bunch of micro evolutions as I explained. I could be wrong, I am not a molecular biologist, but micro is the process of adaptation, macro is based upon random mutations. What I mean is this, a dog is never going to become not a dog, a cat is never going to become not a cat, a bird is never going to become not a bird, a horse is never going to become not a horse. I will give you this, I am not sure about this, but it could be possible that through enough microevolutions a cat might not be able to breed with a distant enough breed of cat, and then I suppose it would be a new species by definition(I am not sure about any of that, just thinking) but the fact remains that it is still just a really different kind of cat. The best example that shows that macroevolution doesn't happen is with the flu, the flu goes through many changes and develops defenses against antibiotics, so in one sense the flu changes, but it always has been, always will be the flu. Anyway, just give me the example so I can look into it.

    Regarding the 6000 years, first of all, even taking the 6 days to be 6 literal days (they actually cannot be by the definition of day) and to suppose that our equivalent of a day here on the planet earth would be the same equivalent when the universe was in its beginnings (even though it is not) the earth would still not be 6000 years for certain based upon the Bible. There are still many unnaccounted genealogies that probably exist in the Genesis account. The range of possible dates could be much longer than 6000. Some might say that this still doesnt account for the millions if not billions between it and the "scientific" record. Sure, but it does make a difference and at the very least we shouldn't assume the Bible says 6000.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Of course not.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Im sorry for my frankness but doesnt that mean that the bible is false from that point of view?

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Chris333 and ifeelfine, the main problem I see in the millions/billions of years theory, from a Christian viewpoint, is this: If someone postulates there were that many years between Day 1 and Day 6 of Creation, that would necessitate death entering the world before man sinned against God - yet we know the Bible is clear that death entered the world because of man's sin.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    That depends on what you define as "evidence".

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The earth is 4.55 billion years old, give or take 1%. All of the evidence agrees on that age; it is not a matter of opinion.

    Also, I disagree that Talk Origins is anti-creationist; it is pro-science. I think that is an important distinction.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It does seem to me it's just as possible the earth is only 6,000 years old as it is that it is millions/billions of years old. The fact is, no one knows for sure. It is hardly Christian to deride those who believe the Genesis account of Creation.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - then by your definition macroevolution has occured and it is documented. New species have been observed to have happened. I don't know if anything higher than that has been observed but I know speciation has occurred.

    As far as your knowledge of evolution, it is a little off. They don't know for sure if all things have exactly one common ancestor or if whatever process started it, did it more than once. All evolution is microevolution macro is just a whole bunch of micro and the split is big enough to change family, etc.

    As far as other Christians, I don't want to name names but I know there are some far right wingers on this site that say that the eaarth is only 6000 years old. I am a Christian and for the record I don't believe that at all.

  • GMG »
    Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GalapagosPete -

    from wikipedia - "Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested."

    "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat."

    "Beyond making the trivial observation that life exists, it is difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis; therefore the hypothesis has many such critics, both in the scientific and non-scientific communities. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continue in the hope of developing a satisfactory theoretical mechanism of abiogenesis."

    These quotes from your wikipedia source do not line up with what you have stated. Yes, I did read your comments. Wanting to prove something that is believed, and then proving it, are two different things. None of this has been proven, just postulated.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As for people believing that the Bible says the world is 6000 years old, so far I have heard it more from atheists than from Christians. For anyone who says it, two things, the genealogies of Genesis were probably not entire, due to the established fact that the word son in hebrew could mean anything from your first son, to your great great great great grandson and then on. And also the 6 day creation does not have to be taken to mean literally 6 days in order for us to literally believe the Bible. Some would disagree with me, but I don't think we have to force the subject either way.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    According to Talkorigins.com (anti ID website), Macroevolution is: In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

    I agree, and what I am trying to distinguish is between macro and micro evolution. Essentially, you could just rename microevolution as adaptation, because that is what it is. Say a bird has a certain beak size that is disadvantageous to its survival due to food supply, that bird will naturally over time (if able to survive) have an adjusted beak size. That is because the birds with the closer-to-specific necessary beak size will survive more than the former beak sized bird. This also explains why all dogs came from a certain common dog, originally there were no yorkshire terriors. Macro evolution is what most people just call evolution, it states that at some point cats and dogs have a common ancestor, and that common ancestor at some point had a ancestor that was common to humans and dinosaurs, all the way back to the one celled organism that started it all... whose ancestors would have been nonliving primordial soup. Another distinguishing factor between micro and macro is that micro is based on natural selection, macro is based on random mutations.

    As far MY theory of intelligent design, I don't see how it has any bearing on this discussion. I strongly suggest looking at William Lane Craig, John Polkinghorne, or a number of other prominent scientists for details. Here are two examples of Intelligent design theories that are different though, one says that the universe is old (billions of years old) the other says that the universe is young (6000+ years old). Some ID proponents also say that evolution is the vehicle God used to create life, others reject that. (Theistic evolution is not the same as evolution, it is a form of intelligent design) Anyway, my main point is this, Naturalistic explanations are not the best fit for why this universe is here, or why life exists.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - There are many on this site who would say that the earth is indeed 6000 years old. I agree that the Bible doesn't make any claims as to the age of the earth but many folks (some posters on this site included) extrapolate that based on other things literally stated in the Bible - you cannot be a "Bible Believin' Christian" without believing that is what someone on this site said. In any case, I've seen creationism and ID used interchangably on this site so I was talking about both in general.

    BTW: What is your definition of macroevolution?

    And while we're at it, can you give me your scientific theory of intelligent design?

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Also, I still stand by my statement that the first simplest cell necessary for life to begin coming together completely randomly (and all the subsequent completely random mutations necessary for life to become what it is today) has a probability of essentially zero. What is more we do not have one example of macroevolution to test or observe, it is a faith statement to say macroevolution is true. It is just a theory, nobody has even attempted to disprove the above criticisms of the theory on this blog, among others.

    By the way GalapagosPete, theist scienctists are not just pulling God in to explain what they cannot understand, it is laughable that you assume that, rather they claim that God is the best explanation. You need to deal with that and not your suppositions. You also made the statement that everything has a natural cause. That is an entirely biased opinion. You have to start by saying, "We know 'supernatural' things like miracles and creation and what not cannot happen" then you say, "therefore everything has a natural cause" It is a circular argument and in terms of debate is self defeating. (I know you didn't say that outright, but it must be implied)

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, as far as ID not being able to change, that is ridiculous, of course theories of ID can change, for that matter why does something have to be able to change in order for it to be science? If something is, then it is. Rubin, ID does not propose that the world is 6000 years old, some people hold that view, but ID as a whole does not, nor does the Bible propose that, it is a myth generated from the middle ages. And ID does not propose that man lived beside dinosaurs, some do yeah, but definitely not all. By the way, if you mean modern man, then I would argue that they apeared in the past 10,000 years or so. But then again that depends on your definition of "modern" and "man". GalapagosPete, the world is extremely fine tuned, any small measure could be slightly off and life would not be possible as we know it. As far as evidence for a designer I would point to a number of sources Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, etc. (ifeelfine, Lee is a journalist, but he does not give his views in his work, he gives the views of highly accredited scientists in each perspective field, word for word, William Lane Craig is hardly a journalist or theologian, he debates with top atheists, check out his website, it might do you good to check things out before you comment on them)

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    On the other hand, if I did say that somewhere, please tell me when so I can go see for myself, because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG, No, looking at my suggested reference, abiogenesis used to mean the same thing, but doesn't any more. Words evolve, as anyone who has a teenage child can tell you.

    While an ocean is an ocean, regardless of the composition, I probably should have said something like, "Earth's early oceans." When I read "primordial soup," I always think chicken noodle.

    We absolutely can explain how life formed from non-living matter. We have a perfectly reasonable, completely natural explanation that fits all the facts. In fact, if you read the part of my post that you quoted (always a good idea before you comment on what it says, I think you'll agree), you'll see that the explanation is actually there.

    What I said was that we have no explanation for where the material that makes up the current universe came from, but that "we don't know" does not equal "goddidit."

    "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer in science, because it is always followed by "yet."

  • GMG »
    Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GalapagosPete -

    "TokenSP, I wanted to point out that spontaneous generation was the belief that complex, living organism are created by decaying organic material. Examples can be found by searching for it on Wikipedia. Spontaneous generation was falsified long ago."

    "Abiogenesis is the modern scientific theory that life started as a result of chemical processes in Earth's oceans billions of years ago. In this case, life means chemicals forming amino acids which go on to combine to become simple organic molecules, and on to today's diverse biosphere. Criticisms of abiogenesis are usually based on confusing the modern scientific theory with the old, discredited, classical version"

    Using your suggested reference, we find that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are terms describing the same idea. Also, that process you describe as happening in the world's oceans is referred to as primodial soup.

    You are correct in that no one can quite explain how life formed from non-living matter; it is also amazing how a whole theory can be built on the supposed evolution of living matter without pinpointing just how the "evolution" of non-living to living occurred. Isn't this rather like getting the cart before the horse?

    And of course, there is always the question of where the very first "something" came from in the first place.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ruben, if a mother had 20 or even 50 children she would still care about them all, no matter how on edge she might be from all of the pain.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    rubinlueski, I agree, but of course the evolutionists and creationists aren't really talking to each other here.

    My remarks are aimed at others who may visit this site, and are intended to counter the misinformation that is being spread by the creationists. It doesn't matter whether they believe what they say, most of it is factually wrong, such as the false calculation of the probability of abiogenesis, or claiming that radiometric dating is unreliable (using long-refuted examples), or that there is some objective measure by which Earth is "perfect", or taking the position that if something is not known to science then that is evidence for ID. And so on.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Even if there is a God, I really dont think that God gives a ratzazz about what anyone on this board says or believes in. The idea that God is all consumed about some insignificant speck called earth amongst the trillions of stars in the cosmos, seems a bit absurd to me. The idea that if you dont believe in this that or the other thing, is a ticket to hell is even more absurd. The preoccupation that so many of you seem to have with salvation and eternal life is nothing more than a fear of there being nothing when you die, which may very well be the case. My view is, what ever is, is. The universe got along just fine for the billions of years before I came along, and it will go on billions of years after I am gone. I do not have a need to believe in an eternal life. The idea of a eternal life is much more frightneing to me than death. When your dead, you wont even know it.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TWO MORE REASONS CREATIONISM & ID NOT TAKEN SERIOUS BY SCIENTISTS:

    1. Creationists and IDer's claim the earth is about 6,000 years.
    Never mind that the scientific data overwhelmingly says its in the billions of years.

    2. Creationists and IDer's claim that dinosaurs and man lived side-by-side.
    Never mind that the scientific data overwhelmingly indicate dinosaurs disappeared 65 million
    years ago and modern man appeared about 200,000 years ago.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ingoditrust posted, "Token-The world, the universe, is all too perfect for it just to have been chance. And as I said before, no material can come from nothing so how did the Big Bang occurr in the first place?"

    In what respect is the Earth perfect? We cannot live everywhere on its surface, the weather is frequently dangerous, many of the species of animals and plants can and do kill us, there are geologic events that take life - so how is Earth "perfect"? I would say it's good, but not perfect.

    As for the Big Bang, there is no known scientific principle that forbids matter and energy from having existed prior to it. It is true we don't know where everything "came from", but only primitive cultures attribute that which they do not understand to gods. Since our experience has repeatedly been that we find natural, non-god-necessary explanations for phenomena, it makes far more sense for our default assumption to be that there will always be a natural explanation, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    My point was not that TokenSP believes in classic spontaneous generation, but rather that the term is being misused here. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, but people are using the terms interchangeably They describe different things, and spontaneous generation has been disproved. Abiogenesis is a current scientific theory, as I described in my earlier post.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Token:

    People believed in spontaneous generation from maggots appearing in decaying meat. I believe it was Pasteur that proved it could not be so, it was that flies would lay their eggs in rotting meat and thet would become maggots. When he sealed meat in a jar, no maggots turned up. I cannot believe that you still believe in this theory.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Token-

    The world, the universe, is all too perfect for it just to have been chance. And as I said before, no material can come from nothing so how did the Big Bang occurr in the first place?

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP, I wanted to point out that spontaneous generation was the belief that complex, living organism are created by decaying organic material. Examples can be found by searching for it on Wikipedia. Spontaneous generation was falsified long ago.

    Abiogenesis is the modern scientific theory that life started as a result of chemical processes in Earth's oceans billions of years ago. In this case, life means chemicals forming amino acids which go on to combine to become simple organic molecules, and on to today's diverse biosphere. Criticisms of abiogenesis are usually based on confusing the modern scientific theory with the old, discredited, classical version.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 posted, "When I say, "life coming together by itself" I mean that a bunch of nonliving matter over a billion years or so randomly forms into some simple cell, which has just the property to survive and reproduce somehow (because it has the desire or because random effects on it force it to?) and then the supposed reproduced cells are able to withstand the environment and what not and continue to reproduce. Randomly."

    Not understanding a mechanism is not the same as saying that there must be a guiding intelligence behind it, especially when even the likelihood of such an intelligence existing has never been established.

    As we learn more, we understand that apparently random effects, which is another way of saying we don't yet know, really follow natural laws. Based on experience, it is far more likely that it will turn out to be some natural law that caused the non-living chemicals to combine in particular ways, ultimately leading to living cells.

    Once, there were many things people attributed to mystical causes, phenomena that ultimately turned out to be perfectly natural. There is no scientific reason to believe otherwise in this case.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - Those aren't science texts, those are books written by journalists or theologians. Just to prove that ID / creationism is not a real scientific theory, answer these couple of questions (anyone is welcome to answer them): Is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? All scientific theories can be falsified. Can creationism be falsified? I would contend that, no, it cannot. It is faith not science so no amount of physical evidence would falsify it. And, is your theory of creationism open to change? In other words, does it have a sound scientific basis that if new evidence comes up to challenge it, can it be re-worked? Again, I would contend that the answer is no since it is taken directly from the Bible and isn't scientific.

    I'm glad that there are people out there that are so passionate about their faith but their passion is misguided. It kind of takes all the wonder and beauty out of faith if you need apologetics to support it.

    BTW: TokenSP - you've stated something that isn't entirely true. It wouldn't take just one piece of evidence to throw evolution out as there is so much other evidence it might just be considered an anomoly.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    When I say, "life coming together by itself" I mean that a bunch of nonliving matter over a billion years or so randomly forms into some simple cell, which has just the property to survive and reproduce somehow (because it has the desire or because random effects on it force it to?) and then the supposed reproduced cells are able to withstand the environment and what not and continue to reproduce. Randomly.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Toookennnn,

    There is so much evidence for ID. Read John Polkinghorne's works, or Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator", or try just googling William Lane Craig. The specifity required for this universe to even support life has been said to be the probability equivalent of aiming at a target on the other side of the universe the size of one square centimeter and hitting it bullseye (I dont know what you would be shooting with but the illustration remains). As far as evidence against evolution, there is plenty of assumed evidence against it, you can look at the above article for starters, which nobody seems to have dealt with in their defenses of atheistic evolution. I stand by my remarks earlier that the probability of life coming together by itself is mathematically zero.

    Another point of difficulty here seems to be about first causes, as in who caused the Universe and if God did then what caused God or where and how did He exist before the Universe? I don't know, but if the universe appears to be created then I am going to accept that it is created. William Lane Craig does a pretty good job of defending the idea that the Universe was created though and discussing the nature of God. I could say this though, the Christian idea of God is that He is beyond, time and matter, and that He is the author of the universe, if true then there is no conflict with the above problem. And what is all this, "your just afraid of evolution/ID" nonsense?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links