From jellyfish fossil finds to the newly discovered function of the appendix, a science and technology watchdog group has released a list of some of the year's top news that reflect mounting evidence supporting intelligent design.
The Access Research Network – which reports on science, technology and society from an intelligent design perspective – recently released its "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" list for 2007.
"Overall in 2007 I'd say we've observed a growing consternation running through many scientific disciplines over Darwinian explanations of the evidence that were once thought to be resolved long ago," said Kevin Wirth, ARN director of media relations.
Among the top stories the group considers a "growing burden" to Darwinists is the increasing level of complexity being discovered in small biological systems such as living cells and in early life history such as jellyfish. Newly uncovered jellyfish fossils in Utah were dated back 200 million years earlier than the oldest specimens of the modern jellyfish yet showed the same complexity as modern orders and families of jellyfish. These findings, according to ARN, challenge Darwin's molecule-to-man theory because they reveal that there was an insufficient amount of time for complex life to have developed only via the Darwinian principles of random mutations and natural selection.
Darwin's "Tree-of-Life" model was also hit hard in 2007 when a scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information published a paper claiming the tree pattern could not explain major transitions in biological evolution and instead proposed a "Biological Big Bang" model.
ARN executive director Dennis Wagner noted that science is still recovering from a whole generation of people who have been raised according to "Darwinian fairytales," such as the teaching that human and chimpanzee genetics only differ by 1 percent and that the appendix is a leftover evolutionary vestige.
"These are Darwinian 'arguments from ignorance' that continue to be discarded as scientists uncover the incredible design and purpose of biological systems," he said.
But the challenges to Darwinism have not been without opposition.
The group notes in its list that political and academic persecution against those who question the evolutionary theory has also been a hallmark for 2007.
"Our modern western culture is so ingrained in the naturalistic Darwinian creation story that those who challenge the story, even with scientific evidence in hand, are treated as outsiders and outcasts," observed Wagner.
He hopes that Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," scheduled for release in early 2008, will serve as a "eye-opener" to Americans on the growing hostility toward individuals who have suggested alternative views to Darwinism.
The debate about origins is expected to heat up again significantly in 2008, Wirth said.
"I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology," he noted.
"I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades."
On the Web: ARN's "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" at www.arn.org/top10
RSS
schumacr,
“So if 99% of the people say rape is OK, it's morally OK?’
This is the weirdest proposition in some time. Our own perception of what is tolerable is what is to be condoned in our society varies if one compares it to all societies worldwide. However, in a democratic consensus to make a statement like this to ignore that no such modern secular society would ever condone such a thing in the first place as no amount of the voting public would ever find it appealing, justifiable and within the bounds of reason. You’re basically arguing a straw man.
What modern secular society would openly condone killing or rape or any such horrid acts? Easy, none.
“But we do - so how did the nonpersonal manufacture the personal?”
Not all organisms have a personality, most in fact don’t. From this we can see that the intention of life itself was not based on being personal in nature alone, nor was it a required trait. Plenty of insects live on successfully without any personal nature at all. This ‘personality’ that some higher grey matter organisms have is the result of a high intellect via a larger brain. You can’t have a personality if you’re grey matter isn’t insufficient.
How did the non-personal manufacture all non-organics that aren’t personal and constitute the vast majority of all matter in the Universe?
"You are completely double minded by claiming to be an evolutionist, but then borrowing from the Christians world view to make sense of your reality"
How exactly am I borrowing anything from christian doctrine? I am not advocating anything dealing with religion at all.
"According to your worldview- I can punch you in the nose, steal your wallet and so forth, and you have no standard other than your opinion to tell me I am wrong. You might not like it- but it's not wrong according to the evolutionist view. "
Ugggh, major fail.
Darwinian evolution and how it regards survival of the fittest never strictly implies that 'only the strong survive'. In fact, if you knew biology you'd see how many organisms operate in the highest level of ethical standards and moral consideration of their closest kin. Organisms exhibt altruistic and symbiotic behavior in which they collectively work together for eachother benefit.
Some animals even show signs of empathy and compassion for their closet kin. Studies have shown for rats, chimps and others animals that when one member is exposed to a electric shock everytime another member of its group tries to eat, the member attempting to eat eventually catches on that they are responsible for shocking their kin. In many cases, particularly with rats, they gave up food altogeher and starved themselves to death.
you assumption that darwinian evolution as having meaning on human ethics is one built on ignorance. we wouldn't consult other science theories for ethical concerns, so what made you think we would for evolution? evolution is just a process life undergoes, nothing more. ethical concerns are best made when all parties involved are considered, in other words via Democratic Concensus.
Gen1_28,
"You also continue to say that the things which happened in the Bible are impossible"
I think a basic understanding of cosmology, astronomy, geology show without a doubt that a 6000 year old earth/universe are without question wrong. I think a simple understanding of how many civiliations that existed prior to, durring and following the noachian flood show it for what it is, a local flood. A local flood that mirrors the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates it by a 1000 years thats its an obvious adaptation. Only a person who didn't understand that the 5th and 6th Dynasties of Egypt went on uninterupted, which is right when the flood supposely occured, would consider a global flood logical.
Somehow 2,000,000+ jews that wandered out of Egypt for 40 years havent't a scrap of evidence of such numbers let alone the event. also consider how illogical it is considering that Canaan at the time was under Egyptian rule, so they left Egypt to remain under Egypt?
"We might know the ball dropped earlier- but what is to say it will drop tomorrow? "
Uniformity in the laws of our Universe say they will pal. B/c we live in REALITY pal and not some fantasy land or the Matrix where the laws of the Universe can change on a whim.Tthis is why we can know, at least with the utmost probability that the ball will indeed fall according to gravity. If it didn't fall and instead floated (like with zero gravity) it wouldn't mean we'd scrap the entire theory of gravity altogether, rather we'd try to explain such new evidence within the confines of the theory.
By all means explain to me why evolutionary theory is any different and how exactly its wrong.
agentorange -
<<Earth worms and other lower grey matter organisms have no ‘personality’ so this trait is only unique with organisms with a certain level of intelligence, it’s not a Universal trait amongst all life. Not all life has personality, in fact considering insects are the most numerous group it seems most don’t.>>
But we do - so how did the nonpersonal manufacture the personal?
agentorange:
<<What do you mean who? Who else….us, the people via Democratic consensus regarding laws and ethics, just like we do here in the states.>>
So if 99% of the people say rape is OK, it's morally OK?
Agent Orage
In Conclusion, you have not proven or given any reason for the uniformity of nature, which you continue to use, nor for the basis of morality, which you continue to claim. You have to borrow these ideas from the Christian worldview. You also have no understanding of what the scientific method is and have slunk down to throwing childish remarks and sidestepping valid arguments which you are unable to answer. Lastlely, just because you don't like something, doesn't make it invalid. Just because you don't like AIG or other creationist scientists doesnlt make their points invalid.
According to your worldview- I can punch you in the nose, steal your wallet and so forth, and you have no standard other than your opinion to tell me I am wrong. You might not like it- but it's not wrong according to the evolutionist view.
You are completely double minded by claiming to be an evolutionist, but then borrowing from the Christians world view to make sense of your reality.
And I can't tell you what transitional species is missing BECAUSE IT"S STILLL MISSING!
Can you honestly answer the questions I have in this post for you? If you can't I just won't waste my time on this further.
Agentorange-
It seems we are at an impass. A presupposition is NOT an assumption. An assumption is something you take for granted. A presupposition is an opinion often based on incomplete evidence made prior to any review of the evidence.
I have heard many "scientists" claim evidence for evolution- and they are completely false and easily disproved. Like I said- it all depends on how you interpret the evidence. I have never seen science that was in conflict with the Bible- only the interpretation of said science by certain scientists who draw biased conclusions based on their presuppositions.
You also continue to say that the things which happened in the Bible are impossible. But you have not shown me how they are impossible. It is simply that you cannot explain them. Again, just because you do not understand something does not make it impossible. If something is not understood that means we must accept the possibility of it- not outright condemn the notion as impossible, as you continue to do.
Finally- you mentioned dropping a ball and assuming it would fall. To do this you are again borrowing from the Christian view and accepting the uniformity of nature without explaining WHY an evolutionist can use such an idea as the uniformity of nature. The scientific method ( I can believe I have to explain this to an evolutionist) can't test anything in hostory. It is impossible to scientifically prove Abe Lincoln was president. It is impossible to prove that the ball dropped yesterday will drop tomorrow. You can only use scientific method to prove things in the here and now. We might know the ball dropped earlier- but what is to say it will drop tomorrow? That would be an assumption based on the uniformity of nature which you are unable to validate a claim towards.
Gen1_28--
part 2
’Finally- a Christian can have claim to the uniformity of nature because all things reflect their creator.“
How so? We don’t see supernatural acts as depicted in every holly book occurring anymore, so our reality conflicts with such supernatural nonsense. We don’t anything supernatural depicted in the bible occurring anymore do we? We don’t see Thor controlling lightning and thunder or Poseidon controlling the ocean as other texts mention. The very stories of such holly texts are super natural and DON’T CONFORM to our Universal laws and Uniform reality.
AIG, yes that same huckster group that brought Kentucky the ‘Creation Museum’. Thanks, but no thanks.
”You make many claims that the bible is full of ununiform acts- but you fail to mention those acts or show how they are ununiform.”
Do I really need to mention ALL of the non-uniform acts? Might I just say the supernatural acts as we would agree, no? Like groups of people directly speaking with Yaweh, people living over 900 at ease, a 6000 year young earth/universe, Noachian flood, etc. all such things AREN’T UNIFORM with our reality, get it? Well it’s either it’s ALL uniform with our REALITY or it’s not. Since its not, it’s own authority on this matter of uniformity is in question, and not uniformity itself. Think critically for a change.
“My final rebuttal is that I hear a lot about evoultion, but the only place I ever see it is usually on paper and never in reality.”
Perhaps you’re understanding on evolution makes you think we should see an ape give birth to a full formed human, this isn’t what evolution predicts at all by the way.
”By the way, have they found the missing link yet?”
Well, read a book like ‘From Lucy to Language’ and you’ll see regarding human evolution and the links. Which species to species transition are you referring to? If you mean a specific instance I’ll site which transitional species we do have evidence for.
Gen1_28-
”Christians believe completley in science.”
Right. Until said science conflicts with their literal interpretation of a 6000 year old universe/earth (this means you as you’re a YEC) and other such nonsense only found in holly texts. Since they believe completely in astronomy (science), they should find no problems with the evidence that shows that the earth and universe ISN’T 6000 years old. More liberal xtians can accommodate such passages as being symbolic musings (which is how they should be), fundy’s like Ken ham and Kent Hovind…not so much.
“Presuppositions are not based on scientific facts in and of themselves.”
Presupposition = assumption. Agree? We can assume that when I drop this ball it will continually fall to earth (as we assume we live in reality which is uniform and not the matrix) and we can use other tests to discover what causes such actions.
Scientific hypothesizes are untested scientific assumptions, but assumptions can be tested and proved or disproved within scientific testing that conform to a given theory. So, in the context of scientific theory (which is composed of 1000’s of independent such tests) a scientific theory is more analogous to a cumulative view of facts rather than a laymen terminology ‘theory’. So, contrary to what you think we can build such tested assumptions based on scientific method.
”Just because yo udon't understand something doesn't make it impossible.”
It doesn’t make it possible or rationale to believe in such things either though. Great comeback….I’ll be sure to use that one! =) What are we in 5th grade now?
Chris333,
(Regarding Dawkins).” This makes him agnostic, not that he hasn't thought about it enough, as in all he would have to do to become atheist is think about it some more. Nor does it mean that he doesn't care, this is obvious.”
He is Atheistic towards religious depictions of ‘god’. He defines himself in this manner so as to avoid implying he’s not thought about it at any length. But those depictions of ‘god’ that fall in the realm of being harder to disprove or even form an educated guess of (Deistic, Pantheist,) he is Agnostic of, but still highly skeptical about their existence as well. B/c ‘god’ depends highly on one’s view of what it all entails god could be so impossible as to define that to base judgment on insufficient quantitative qualities make either propositions of absolute theism or atheism on a scale harder, if not impossible to judge. This is why, considering the present evidence, his stance on being atheistic towards religious gods is rationale, while being less atheistic towards deistic concepts of god is also rational.
Agentorange-
You ask many good questions- but they are all based on presuppositions. I will try to make this short.
Christians believe completley in science. God created science and science is merely an understanding of nature (God's creation). All facts, including scientific ones, are validated THROUGH presuppositions. Presuppositions are not based on scientific facts in and of themselves.
Just because yo udon't understand something doesn't make it impossible.
Finally- a Christian can have claim to the uniformity of nature because all things reflect their creator. Art reflect the creative understanding of the artist, machines reflect the mechanical understanding of their creators, and creation reflects the Creator, God, who is never changing, hence uniform. I see no possible way for the evoutionist to make claim to ununiformity of nature- sure it suports your point- but you have to borrow from my world view in order to make sense of your crazy idea of evoution.
You also asked about young earth scientists. Please look up "Answers in Genesis" a famous YEC group.
I appologize I am not able to give more time to this discussion.
You make many claims that the bible is full of ununiform acts- but you fail to mention those acts or show how they are ununiform. Even if they are, how does that support the evoutionist view of believeing in the uniformity of nature? It doesn't. It just goes to show that God can do all things. I do believe all those things have scientific reasoning- we just don't necesarily understand them all.
My final rebuttal is that I hear a lot about evoultion, but the only place I ever see it is usually on paper and never in reality.
By the way, have they found the missing link yet?
Schumacr-
You have to admit regardless of who's correc, at the very least we are opening new avenues of thought for those that read this, no? =)
”Why so?”
Your very own bible and other holly books implies he’s a Omni benevolent being, but a short objective overview of all things in our Universe doesn't show any benevolence with strictly us humans in mind. Do you realize how vast and large the universe is and how many 100’s of billions of stars exist and their trillions of planets that orbit them? To think we are the only life in all of this is quite arrogant. To think that is the height of arrogance.
“Further, explain how impersonality creates/causes personality.”
Earth worms and other lower grey matter organisms have no ‘personality’ so this trait is only unique with organisms with a certain level of intelligence, it’s not a Universal trait amongst all life. Not all life has personality, in fact considering insects are the most numerous group it seems most don’t.
This is similar to asking how evolution could ever from A-Z end up producing such wide varieties of complex life and how some have emotional feelings much like us. Rats, Chimps and others mammals exhibit empathy, emotions and an innate sense of ethics and morality to their closest kin. This is the result of a lower level conscious that their actions have consequences, which stems directly from their wiring of their brains. They are biologically wired to care, just like us. But for religion this makes no sense as it declares animals have no souls and have no self-interest to behave morally or with ethics at all. They are according to religion, beasts remember? But in the context of evolutionary and biological understanding it makes perfect sense.
“An effect can never be greater than its cause so tell me how a purposeless, meaningless, impersonal universe created beings obsessed with purpose and meaning, and who are full of personality.”
From an evolutionary perspective, all varieties of life main and principle end purpose/goal is to reproduce and pass on its genes and nothing more. Other non-organic organisms also have purpose, like stars that their purpose is to be pulled together under gravity to cause fission, which in turn emits energy. This isn’t so much as purpose as it is the end result of how the universe works according to laws that govern it. Just like the very same laws that govern us and gave rise to initial microbial life, which eventually via evolution gave rise to higher intelligence organisms that have personality and lastly those that embody consciousness- us.
In the coming decades, following Quantum computing when we do create AI robots that too have a conscious, personality and purpose would you argue WE are then by definition also gods? Of course not.
Schumacr-
”Your error was first committed by Bertrand Russell when he asked the same thing – only everything that begins must have a cause. It’s a category mistake – much like asking: Where is the bachelor’s wife?
“God has no beginning so He doesn’t need a cause.”
Well, isn’t that a convenient for your side of the argument! You, by FIAT get to DEFINE and DECALRE his existence as outside of causation and is thus self created!? How the hell do you know he isn’t? Your argument is one from ignorance as you know no better, but instead of having to admit the logical fallacy of implying causation, in that it would refute your very own god existence you declare him self created so as to avoid having to answer it. This argument is no better than how those will argue that a given complex system is so’ because god made it that way’, which is completely vapid of any logic at all. Well, if that’s a good enough logical explanation for you, then I pity your logic.
If your god can be ‘self-created’ and outside of causation, why can’t the very Universe be equally self-created?
“And before you try and refute that, remember you must go back to an eternal, unmade ‘something’.”
Well, Energy/Matter is scientifically proven to be ETERNAL (1st law) and only can be transferred within a system and not created or destroyed. That coupled with the universe being self created, just like your god, removes him entirely. Unless you’re considering praying to gravity or other universal laws of our Universe, but that would be irrational.
”Why so?”
Your very own bible and other holly books implies he’s a Omni benevolent being, but a short objective overview of all things in our Universe don’t show any benevolence with strictly us humans in mind. Do you realize how vast and large the universe is and how many 100’s of billions of stars exist and their trillions of planets that orbit them? To think we are the only life in all of this is quite arrogant. To think that is the height of arrogance.
schumacr-
”Very simply, you’re confusing “do” and “ought”. Just because people act wrongly doesn’t mean there isn’t a good and perfect Law that says they ought to be better.”
You’re right, perhaps a ‘true moral’ exists, however it doesn’t require referring to a holly book. Much of the NT depicts Jesus as a pacifist (turning the other cheek) however, this type of moral sense can and is counterintuitive in a world where other countries are seeking nuclear weapons. We can only ‘turn the other cheek’ to our enemies so many times before they take this as a weakness and use such weapons against us. Even there, the moral precepts of Jesus aren’t universal, nor are they timeless.
You implied that ‘godly people’ are (somehow) able to attain a higher moral high ground simply b/c their blind faith in god and said laws. However, many instances of godly people acting in the most horrid manor disprove this. Inquisitions, Witch trials, Crusades, all those nice godly xtians that joined and participated in Nazi Germany’s ‘Final Solution’ for the Jews, etc. There might be a higher road to ethics and morality, but our own sense of morality as already mentioned is one that has evolved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this instance.
“Your argument of contradiction, etc., still don’t mean there isn’t a “real” reality and a God who exists in that reality. “
Well then which book and rules are we to adopt then? And how are we to follow rules of said book? If we are to follow it as it’s godly, then we must emphatically follow ALL 100% of the rules and punishments within it and not pick and choose which ones to use and not to use as this would be hypocritical and be self defeating for the grounds of using a holly book to begin with. If we took the Bible as our guide, that would mean we would be stoning the following acts to death: witches/wizards to death, stoning adulterers, gays, kids that curse their parents, anyone who asks people to worship other gods, and so on.
”The Dead Sea Scrolls were/are one of the strongest evidences that the Bible we hold in our hands today mirrors what was originally written down.”
They sure are, they also reveal how early Judaism, like all earlier religions originally worshipped a pantheon of gods (Sons of El) in the Elohim, of which EL was the supreme god and not Yahweh.
schumacr-
”And who defines a good and lawful system? Where does that morality come from? You? Me? Culture?”
What do you mean who? Who else….us, the people via Democratic consensus regarding laws and ethics, just like we do here in the states. Taking one look at all the laws and ethics in every single holly book will reveal ethics and laws already side wide ranging that would by defacto destroy any idea of ‘moral truths’ or a ‘timeless moral standard’
“And will that standard change?”
Well I would assume in some minor regard yes, but like how slavery, sexual equality and others were changed, it was an obvious change for the better, no?
“Again, without an absolute and unchanging God, you have both feet firmly planted in mid air. Your evolutionary morality doesn't measure up to what you want.”
As mentioned earlier, even with a given book regarding morality, each holly book varies on ethics and morality and so the choice of choosing amongst them all would be a hard enough task. Consider also the punishments regarding the commandments that were quite ‘absolute’ and resolute in the OT that are also not observed. We no longer stone to death anyone for any such trivial acts like working on the Sabbath or an acquaintance that is asking you to seek other gods. Consider how utterly brutal and ethically backwards most consider the Muslim world and it’s a good thing we no longer use such outdated OT laws and punishments.