Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Movie nite: Tom Bethell says there is no evidence for evolution

Spread the love

How would you argue against the author of Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates?

Throughout his career as a journalist, Tom Bethell interviewed some of science’s top thinkers and discovered deep flaws in evolutionary thinking. In this documentary, Iconoclast, as well as his book, Darwin’s House of Cards, he reflects on his discoveries and discussions, drawing together the main themes of the Darwin debates from Darwin to today.

What’s your best argument against that view?

See also: Laszlo Bencze on Tom Bethell’s Darwin’s House of Cards

 

11 Replies to “Movie nite: Tom Bethell says there is no evidence for evolution

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    There is… for micro-evolution or the changes within kinds…

    How else could we have 10.000.000 species and counting on earth after Noah’s flood most of them being land animals?

    There is no evidence for macro-evolution or what I like to call a Quantum Leap In Physical Make Up of species that can only be explained by top down approach… such as quantum creation…

  2. 2
    vmahuna says:

    I generally like Tom Bethell’s work, starting with “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science”. But “House of Cards” is VERY poorly written. It feels like a collection of essays stabled together between 2 covers.

    And I get REAL tired of everybody citing Behe’s discussion of the flagellum. A MUCH better “irreducibly complex system” is Blood Clotting. Blood Clotting either works EXACTLY the way it’s supposed to, or you DIE. Either your blood leaks out because the smallest cut NEVER clots, or the blood flowing in your veins clots because you don’t have the ANTI-clotting subsystem.

    And of course there’s Vision: you do NOT see with your EYES. You see with your MIND, not your brain. So the most perfect mammalian eyeball is WORTHLESS if there are not several dozen other subsystems transmitting the raw signals and then recomposing the data stream into a Picture. So again, the SYSTEM either works correctly on Day 1, or the pieces are expensive (in biological upkeep) junk.

    None of this EVOLVED. It appeared POOF! in fully functioning order, just like echo-location in bats.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    If there is micro-evolution then what is there to prevent macro-evolution?

    What designer in their right mind would use materials and processes that change unpredictably over time? Would you fly in a 747 if you knew parts were going to mutate at random and maybe cause a wing to fall off? That’s not how human designers work. That’s not what design is about. And if your magical designer is so good, how come we find fossils of all these extinct species? Omniscient designers don’t get things wrong.

    Current best estimates put the age of the Universe at around 13.8 billion years, the Earth at about 4.5 billion years. Human science has been trying to unravel what went happened over those eons for a few hundred years at best. Of course we don’t have every single link in the causal chains for those timespans. Of course there are gaps in our theories and observations. What does Bethell or anyone else expect? If you have anything better then bring it on but I can tell you that some unknown, unspecified intelligent designer doesn’t cut it. We can always ask for the origin of the designer and the designer’s knowledge. if you can’t answer that then your gaps are at least as big as ours.

  4. 4
    J-Mac says:

    If there is micro-evolution then what is there to prevent macro-evolution?

    You tell me! We have 10.000.000 species on earth. Which one of them is macro-evolving?

    It should be a piece of cake in the lab…
    What is there that prevents macro-evolution in lab experiments?
    Why there is not even one lab experiment published documenting macro-evolution?

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    I have to agree with Seversky.

    Even the most ardent Young Earth Creationist doesn’t go so far as to claim that all extant species were carried on The Ark. They all admit that extant species evolved from the original pairs on The Ark.

    Perhaps Bethell means that there’s no evidence that modern species evolved from animals that were on The Ark. In that case, I agree with him.

    In fact, Young Earth Creationism requires HYPER-evolution.

    If there’s no evidence for evolution, there’s certainly no evidence for Young Earth Creationism.

  6. 6
    EricMH says:

    Always the response to this by Darwinists is: so what, our model sucks but it’s all we’ve got.

    Why is sticking with a known bad model better than jettisoning it as bad and looking for something better?

    So what if YEC is worse? That doesn’t make Darwinism correct.

    ID clearly shows that the chance and necessity paradigm that logically leads to Darwinism is not the only possibility. Purposefulness is a third descriptive paradigm, and we should be throwing all our energy behind understanding it instead of trying to prop up collapsing materialism.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Even Young Earth Creationists admit that evolution occurs.

    Why would they do so if there is in fact “no evidence for evolution”?

  8. 8
    Latemarch says:

    Mung@5
    They all admit that extant species evolved from the original pairs on The Ark.

    As an ardent YEC I admit to no such thing.

    1.I am not fond of using undefined words in broad all inclusive statements. The word ‘evolved’ means different things to different people and I am pretty sure that Seversky is using it differently than J-Mac.

    If you mean by evolution that new information is generated by random mutation acted upon by natural selection…no.
    If you mean change…sure.

    2. Species is a word with multiple definitions with no one definition that works across the broad expanse of all living organisms. (I’m violating my own standards in this statement as even ‘living’ is not entirely well defined.)

    3. There’s a mixing of classification schemes. Noah took ‘Kinds’ on the ark which does not correlate well with Linnaeus’ classification scheme. Kind tends to break at about the Family level…sometimes.

    4.Not all Kinds were taken aboard the ark. The Kinds that swim for instance. There’s also some arguments among YEC about the insects, all, part or none.

    Let me take a stab at a statement that most YEC would agree to.
    Of the Kinds taken aboard the ark there are now many different varieties of animals (broad sense of that word) that have changed within the limits of their Kind.

  9. 9
    J-Mac says:

    Not bad Latemarch!

    Whenever I mention kinds in discussions with Darwinists, they often ask me for the definition of kinds; what separates two different kinds.

    In order to prove evolution, they point to changes within kinds as proof for macro-evolution…

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    If there is micro-evolution then what is there to prevent macro-evolution?

    The fact that species only reproduce according to their own kinds, for one thing. Reptiles do not macro-evolve into birds. This has never been observed and there is no fossil evidence to suggest that it has.

    What designer in their right mind would use materials and processes that change unpredictably over time? Would you fly in a 747 if you knew parts were going to mutate at random and maybe cause a wing to fall off? That’s not how human designers work. That’s not what design is about. And if your magical designer is so good, how come we find fossils of all these extinct species? Omniscient designers don’t get things wrong.

    Just because a species goes extinct does not mean that the designer made a mistake. Your mistake is assuming—wrongly—that you know the mind of the designer.

  11. 11
    J-Mac says:

    Mung @ 10

    “I have to agree with Seversky.

    Even the most ardent Young Earth Creationist doesn’t go so far as to claim that all extant species were carried on The Ark. They all admit that extant species evolved from the original pairs on The Ark.

    Perhaps Bethell means that there’s no evidence that modern species evolved from animals that were on The Ark. In that case, I agree with him.

    In fact, Young Earth Creationism requires HYPER-evolution.

    If there’s no evidence for evolution, there’s certainly no evidence for Young Earth Creationism.

    Can you elaborate on the above? It just hit me that I many have misunderstood your comment…

    Thanks

Leave a Reply