Darwinism Intelligent Design

A rabbi shares the insights from a new space alien friend about random evolution

Spread the love

This is the rabbi’s account:

I would like to introduce the noble readers of this blog to my new friend named Tuto. Tuto lives in the future and he comes from outer space. He lands on the earth after it has been totally destroyed by a cosmic extinction event. Every living organism has been destroyed. Tuto has a few days to make archaeological digs, gather specimens, and fly back to his home planet.

He discovers that on the earth there are iron ores. Then digging someplace else he uncovers an almost complete Mercedes Benz. Hey, this is amazing, he thinks. So he radios home and asks for an extension for some more time to gather more specimens. After some more digging, he finds some bottles of ink. many different colors. Then in a real strike of luck, he discovers the Mona Lisa.

He gathers all his specimens and returns home. When he is home, a board of scientists makes the following conclusions: We have strong evidence that iron exists on planet Earth. We also have strong evidence that Mercedes cars existed on planet earth. We therefore conclude that the metal morphed into the Mercedes by a natural process. Everyone cheers “Hurray! Amazing”

Furthermore, therefore, we have strong evidence that colored ink existed in the past on planet Earth. And we have strong evidence that there was an amazing work of art called the Mona Lisa. We, therefore, conclude that the ink self-organized to draw the detailed Mona Lisa.

After seeing the latest clip of Prof. Tour talking about the origins of life I see that this is more or less what these “experts” are claiming.

  1. We have evidence that the “soup” existed (do we really??)
  2. We see in the fossil record primitive life forms after time from the above.
    2a. We have no mechanism for how the soup could produce these life forms nor we cannot replicate it, nor do we have no clue about how it might have happened
  3. Totally ignore 2a.
  4. We have strong evidence that life emerged from the soup via totally natural processes.

Dr. Lee Spetner, in his extremely informative book The Evolution Revolution, drives home the point that if you don’t have a mechanism to explain circumstantial evidence, your evidence simply doesn’t count: (bold text mine)

Consider a hypothetical murder mystery where the victim was found dead on the floor of the library of his home with a gunshot wound in the head. A gun was found on the floor in the same room. The case is brought to court and the prosecuting attorney speaks. “This is an open and shut case, your Honor. Exhibit A is the murder weapon as has been proved by ballistic tests comparing the bullet extracted from the victim with similar bullets fired from the same gun. Furthermore, the gun is owned by the accused and has been shown to have his fingerprints on it.

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I recommend the jury find him guilty of murder.” The defense attorney then rises to speak. “The circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to warrant a guilty verdict, your Honor. To make the circumstantial evidence meaningful in this case, the prosecution must show how the accused could have carried out the murder. The accused is confined to a wheelchair and we have had expert testimony that he cannot get out of the chair by himself. May I remind the court that within less than a minute after the shot was heard, family members burst into the room to find the victim dead while the accused was in his wheelchair in his room one floor above. Unless the prosecution can give a plausible account of how the accused could have performed the murder and returned to his room a floor above within less than a minute, the circumstantial evidence cannot be used to convict him. I therefore urge the jury to find him innocent.”

The same situation prevails with the attempt to use fossil evidence to support Common Descent. The fossils are circumstantial evidence requiring a theory that can account for how Common Descent could have occurred. Such a theory must account for how the information in living organisms could have been built up in the process of Common Descent. Neither the neo-Darwinian theory, nor any other theory presently known, is able to do this. One must therefore conclude that fossil evidence does not support Common Descent.

Spetner, Lee. The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc. Kindle Edition.

But evos will go on and on and on wasting oxygen. They have the ultimate proof that we are all accidents: We are here.

29 Replies to “A rabbi shares the insights from a new space alien friend about random evolution

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    The anti ID commenters here all know they are absurd.

    The question is what drives grown persons, mostly men, to act like spoiled pre-teens? Then the question is why do supposedly rational adults treat these juvenile acts as if they are serious?

    The answer is that both are guilty of sophomoric acts and one begets the other.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Denyse,

    If you have not read it, read Asimov’s very short story, “Silly Asses.” It’s less than 2 pages.

    https://supernovacondensate.net/2012/06/23/isaac-asimov-silly-asses/

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    There are significant differences between unrefined iron ore and the fine steels and synthetic materials such as plastics in the Mercedes. I would expect advanced spacefaring aliens to be able to tell the difference using their tricorders and would be more likely to conclude that an advanced civilization must have existed on Earth at some time in the past. If Tuto couldn’t do that you would have to wonder how his people ever got into space in the first place.

    As for Spetner’s crime scene scenario, I would expect that the prosecution, having investigated with due diligence, would be well aware of the problems with the claim that the accused committed the offense and would not go before a judge to claim that the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming when it clearly isn’t.

    If this is meant to illustrate by analogy the weakness in the case for evolution it’s a poor argument.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As to,

    Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup – Lee Cronin Part 01
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwPi1miWu4

    Of related note to that, Dr. Tour has part 2 of his series debunking Dave Farina’s ‘experts’ coming out tonight,

    Cronin’s Chemistry – Dissecting the Data of an ‘Expert’ in Origin of Life – Lee Cronin Part 02
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOZh4zmrXo

    Also of related note to debunking ‘professor’ Dave, Günter Bechly has just released the last of his 7 part series debunking ‘professor’ Dave

    “Crazy Stuff’? Dave Farina on the Waiting Time Problem
    Günter Bechly – December 12, 2022
    Excerpt: Last but not least, we definitely have to address another mathematical argument I currently happen to work and publish about (Hössjer et al. 2018, 2021, Bechly et al. in prep.), which is the waiting time problem that Farina calls “crazy stuff.”
    The formulation “crazy stuff” of course implicitly suggests that this is a pseudo-problem invented by evil and stupid creationists. Farina mostly relies on a silly and embarrassingly incompetent “debunking” video by another YouTuber, who has not even understood the problem. Both chaps seem to be totally unaware that the waiting time problem has a long history and has been much discussed in mainstream science (especially population genetics) and even plays an important role in cancer research.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/12/crazy-stuff-dave-farina-on-the-waiting-time-problem/

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    Sev makes good points per usual. We are to believe Tuto comes from a race of beings smart enough to develop interstellar or even intergalactic space travel but are too stupid to decipher the Mercedes VIN that identifies down to the chassis number every detail of manufacture of this unit? Come on…..

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    Dr. Lee Spetner, in his extremely informative book The Evolution Revolution, drives home the point that if you don’t have a mechanism to explain circumstantial evidence, your evidence simply doesn’t count:

    The way I would put it is we start with data we gather about something, be it a crime scene or some natural phenomenon. If the data is found to fit into an explanation then it becomes evidence for that explanation. The data might fit a number of different explanations and the problem then becomes finding more data, hopefully additional data which fits one explanation better than its competitors and so helps us to choose between them.

  7. 7
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    I’d like to thank or Atheist friends for their excellent smoke screens.

    But I keep asking if they got ANY evidence that the first life did NOT originate by Divine intervention.
    Month after month. Year after year I’ve asked.

    And here’s what evidence they’ve given:
    None

    Isnt that a total howl?

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Burden of proof, TLH. You claim life appeared on Earth through divine intervention, why should we believe it?

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    Sevs makes good points per usual (this is certainly not a biased assessment of his points, especially given some of his vacuous comments about religion and the mind)

    Whether an alien species can tell the difference between Mercedes-Benz and an actual living creature depends on a great deal of things.

    For one it depends on how that species evolved and it’s view of reality which evolution does not necessarily convey truth, and how they made it to the planet also depends on the same.

    Sev’s good points ride on the assumption that all alien races evolved like we did, which is the StarTrek assumption. An assumption that is very likely poppycock.

    It is very possible for a race to be entirely biological and have no technology but still be space fairing. It is also entirely possible for a mechanical race to have evolved or is everyone unaware of the trans-humanist rantings?

    Furthermore, I can make a very delightful argument for the evolution of a wheel into a Mercedes Benz, without the need of humans, because evolution has the flexibility as a theory to explain it. It doesn’t need direct evidence, it can explain anything as long as it exists, which is the whole point of the OP.

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 9,

    The first thing to consider is faster than light travel. Can it be done? If it can’t then no need to talk about aliens at all. If it can, then one day we might see a few. Evolution does not explain anything, especially behavior. Bees are pre-programmed just like cats and dogs. How do they “know” what to do?

    Aside from TV and movies, no one has seen actual aliens.

  11. 11
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Relatd

    “Evolution does not explain anything, especially behavior.”

    It can, not well, but it can. With imagination and tiny steps.

    There are two reasons I hate the theory.

    1.) Richard Dawkins and his empty crusade against religion believing he could slay God (something he doesn’t believes exists but certainly acts like he does) with the greatest show on earth “evolution”. The more he talked the more I realized he was simply substituting God with the word evolution.

    2.) the garbage known as evolutionarily psychology. Which explains everything and anything particularly human behavior. It is why I am firmly convinced the theory can explain whatever. It did not become more apparent to me that this was the case then when evolutionarily psychologists tried to explain why people liked the pic of Kim Kardashian’s big ass with a champagne bottle balanced on it from years ago. ALL credibility for the theory was thrown into the garbage for me.

    Prior to that you could have considered me a proponent of theistic evolution.

    But the proponents of the theistic evolution had a tendency not to question the questionable findings of evolutionary psychology, so I promptly left

  12. 12
    Belfast says:

    The remarks made by Seversky in 3 might have been passed over but for the fact that they have been regarded as good points. Not only are they not good points but they seem to have been made in ignorance of the fact that evolution has its entire basis in analogous reasoning.
    No need to go into this in any detail but, for example, convergent evolution is supposed to be justified from analogies are drawn in the similarity in function between the wings of birds and the wings of insects; and natural selection is analogous – according to Darwin – to the selection taking place in animal and plant husbandry.
    What Seversky and CD did was to expand the analogy given and rewrite it to their satisfaction, so they could scoff. The given analogies were expanded by both to imagine additional data to the example. Essentially, the claim was that the given analogies would not work because both the aliens and the police would have had more data, and were smart enough to reason differently.
    In Australia in 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty on circumstantial evidence of murdering her baby. The defence was that a dingo probably took the child. No one saw the murder and experts were called to say the dingoes wouldn’t do that kind of thing. Four years later, the baby’s clothing was found in a dingo’s lair nearby. She was released instantly.
    Because early scientists could not detect parallax error, they drew the analogy that when things come back to the same place they assumed the stars went around the earth; furthermore, they argued from analogy that because a circle is perfect, and because nature is perfect, the orbits taken by planets were in a circle.
    The analogies given here was meant to demonstrate that with insufficient data, why, when, and where may seem to justify a finding, but the HOW, the mechanism, must be shown as well or wrongful conclusions can be drawn – there may be better analogies, but the central claim made is that there is insufficient data to justify common descent; the data falls short as it did in the given instances.
    In Chamberlain’s case the HOW was of no importance since the means of killing a baby are too obvious, choking, stabbing etc.
    Analogy is inductive reasoning, where there is a fallacy it is because the parallels are too far fetched, but its value lies in illustration. There is no parallel between Chamberlain in facts, the lesson lies in the similarity of conclusions based on interpretation or insufficiency of data.

  13. 13
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Wow, I keep asking our Atheist friends if they got ANY evidence that the first life did NOT originate by Divine intervention?

    And every time, they never give any.
    I mean, top Scientists have been looking for that evidence for almost 2 centuries.
    Nobel Prize winners from top colleges, Boatloads of NSF grants. Hyping B.S. press releases almost every week.

    But any evidence? ANY evidence?
    Sorry, not yet.
    So us Creationists, nowadays we’re sitting in the catbird seat, laughing.

    .:

  14. 14
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Still no Evidence!!!!

    I keep asking our Atheist friends if they got ANY evidence that the first life did NOT originate by Divine intervention. Month after month. Year after year I ask.
    And what have they given me, evidence-wise?
    Nothing nada zilch.

    Fellas, remember that the Top Scientists have been trying to get that evidence for almost 2 centuries. Nobel Prize Winners. From Top Colleges. With boatloads of NSF grants to milk.
    Of course, almost every week they hype a new BS press release
    But just what evidence do they got?
    None

    So us Creationists, nowadyas, we’re sitting in the catbird seat,
    laughin and laughin.

  15. 15
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @11

    There are two reasons I hate the theory.

    1.) Richard Dawkins and his empty crusade against religion believing he could slay God (something he doesn’t believes exists but certainly acts like he does) with the greatest show on earth “evolution”. The more he talked the more I realized he was simply substituting God with the word evolution.

    2.) the garbage known as evolutionarily psychology. Which explains everything and anything particularly human behavior. It is why I am firmly convinced the theory can explain whatever. It did not become more apparent to me that this was the case then when evolutionarily psychologists tried to explain why people liked the pic of Kim Kardashian’s big ass with a champagne bottle balanced on it from years ago. ALL credibility for the theory was thrown into the garbage for me.

    Prior to that you could have considered me a proponent of theistic evolution.

    Dawkins’s crusade against religion is just embarrassing (see here, and evolutionary psychology is impossible (see here). But it seems kind of weird to take either of those as reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory, theistic or not. That’s like switching political parties because you can’t stand the candidates.

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    rejecting evolutionary theory

    What do you mean by evolutionary theory?

    This could mean one of several thing so to reject something one has to be specific in what one rejects. Often a commenter uses a word that has many different definitions/understandings.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    PM1,

    You have an esoteric and convoluted take on Evolution. I reject Evolution because it makes unscientific claims. At least every version of it I’ve seen does.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Jerry: What do you mean by evolutionary theory?

    Kind of like “what do you mean by The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic eh Jerry? Lest we forget how wrong you got that topic and then immaturely forgot to concede that you did get it completely wrong.

    I guess a perfect GRE score doesn’t mean diddly squat when it comes to what is actually correct.

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    I reject unguided evolution. It cannot be tested. And the complexity of living things precludes unguided evolution. All the complex parts in the human body forming by accident? Not a reasonable conclusion.

  20. 20
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @19

    I reject unguided evolution. It cannot be tested. And the complexity of living things precludes unguided evolution. All the complex parts in the human body forming by accident? Not a reasonable conclusion.

    If I thought that “unguided” entailed “accident”, I might agree with you. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.

    Evolution is “unguided” in exactly the following sense, and the following sense only: there is no empirically detectable mechanism that can determine what traits shall be adaptive in the future, and then cause those traits to arise.

    It does not follow at all that therefore biological complexity is “accidental”, regardless of what “accidental” means in this context.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    What do you mean by evolutionary theory?

    Asked but not answered.

    Is there anything to reject if there is no definition of it?

  22. 22
    Seversky says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/13

    Wow, I keep asking our Atheist friends if they got ANY evidence that the first life did NOT originate by Divine intervention?

    Christopher Hitchens said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    When somebody comes forward with hard, experimental evidence for this divine Creator, we’ll look at it. Until then, there’s no case to answer.

  23. 23
    chuckdarwin says:

    Sev/22
    Ain’t that a howl……….

  24. 24
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @16

    What do you mean by evolutionary theory?

    This could mean one of several thing so to reject something one has to be specific in what one rejects. Often a commenter uses a word that has many different definitions/understandings.

    I take evolutionary theory to consist of three major claims:

    1. heritable variation: morphological variations arising in one generation can be transmitted to successive generations. These variations can be genetic, epigenetic, or behavioral. This conception is broad enough to encompass the Baldwin effect, developmental canalization, niche construction, etc.

    2. populationist conception of species: there is no ontological distinction between species and population — or as Darwin put it, “species are only well-marked varieties”. At a first pass of definition, species is a group of organisms that face no barriers to producing viable and fertile offspring through mating.

    3. adaptive change over time: (1) and (2) entail that over time, speciation will tend to occur.

    Two additional points, not really included in evolutionary theory but which are central to how I conceive of it.

    4. organisms as intrinsically purposive: organisms are agents that act purposively in order to maintain their own existence as much as possible (given circumstances). Teleology is real and not reducible to mechanism, and biology is not reducible to physics. Agent causation is biologically real.

    5. natural selection as higher-order effect: natural selection is what tends to happen to populations over time as organisms do what they do: pursue goals and attempt to satisfy their needs. Thus natural selection is an effect and not a cause. The causes of evolution lie in what organisms themselves are doing in response to changes in their environments and what happens to organisms as a result of changes in those environments (including changes in the timing of developmental events, which is a major cause of phenotypic novelty).

  25. 25
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Evidence that God created teh first life?
    No problem. Us Creationists we got boatloads of evidence.
    Peer reviewed empiral scientific evidence.

    The problem is with our poor Athesit friends, apparently they’re not too good at concepts like logic and evidence.

    Let me explain, once more.
    Life has not always existed. It had an origin, cause Scientists have figured out that In the early universe everything was way too hot to allow life.
    The question is Did life have a naturalistic origin or a supernatural origin?
    Thats a pure dichotomy.

    In a dichotomy any evidence against one proposition is evidence in favor of the other.

    And for almost two centuries, Scientists made a huge effort to make life without Divine intervention.
    Top Gurus, Nobel prize winners at the best colleges, Oceans of NSF grants.
    Plus tons of dough from Europe Chine Russia, Asia, countries like that.

    And what have they come with, other than a new BS press release every week?
    We all know. A total flop
    So now, they dont even have a plan where to look next to get evidnece of a naturalistic origin of life.
    And that, of course, is overwhelming evidence FOR creationism.

    Now, I would like to deal with a favorite smokescrren of our Atheist friends. Thya ask for some direct scientific evidence of God. Unhappily, there is no way to get such evidence, because Scientitsts have no means of getting any that exists. That’s becuase God has free will. As do humans. With humans, if you want to do an experiment on them, like a a test of a new drug, you got to induce them to take part in the test. So you induce them with something they want. like money, or fame or free medical treatment. Or you can use negative inducements, like a threat of punishment.

    But with God, what possible inducment do scientists have to get God to do domething. Obviously none. By contrast, a naturalisic origin of life is merely some unguided chemical reactions. And one thing Scientists are very good at is chemistry. So their failure to demostrate the reactions is fatal to the naturalistc hypotheiss. And that’s curtains for Atheism.

    So if anybody still doesnt fly with Creationism, you need to come with some avidence supporting the naturalistic origin of life. if you dont want to be laughed at

  26. 26
    jerry says:

    speciation will tend to occur

    There is nothing in your answer that anyone from ID will object to except for what is meant by speciation.

    The term species is poorly understood because the definition keeps changing. The current understanding is light years away from what Darwin understood it was.

    phenotypic novelty

    This has nothing to do with Evolution.

    All sorts of phenotypes can develop in genetics and have nothing to do with the creation of any significant novelty within a species. For example, size or strength are two wide variations within humans but no one would say a tall human and a small human are not the same species.

    biology is not reducible to physics

    A nit, a lot of biology is due to physics and chemistry which is due to physics.

    Protein folding is definitely due to physics and so are some other processes. There is a huge discipline called biochemistry.

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    Jerry: The term species is poorly understood because the definition keeps changing. The current understanding is light years away from what Darwin understood it was.

    Yes, species is a human introduced concept applied to biology. But, guess what? Biology just doesn’t care how humans attempt to catalog and categorise life forms. This is why every definition of species has fuzzy edges which makes it tough to draw solid lines. Reproductive isolation is pretty good but, again, the edges are not solid.

  28. 28
    Origenes says:

    PM1 @

    Thus natural selection is an effect and not a cause.

    And certainly not a creative effect, I would like to add. It never ceases to amaze me that some regard natural selection to be a creative force, instead of the destroyer that it is.
    In the evolutionary story, random variation, against all odds, creates viable organisms and next they are largely culled by NS. Suppose random variation wins the lottery and forms a beautiful new organism but failed to equip it with protection against a harsh winter. In cometh the alleged ‘creative’ force “natural selection” and freezes it to death.
    Natural selection destroys & never creates. It hampers the random search for new viable organisms, it hampers evolution.

  29. 29
    Origenes says:

    *** The Magic of Natural Elimination ***

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances (…), could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd (…)”
    — Charles Darwin.

    Dear Charles, indeed your whole idea that elimination is creative has been absurd from the get-go. It never made any sense: elimination is simply not a process that forms organs.

    “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
    — Charles Darwin

    Charles, a weeding out process — the elimination of what temporarily happens to be unfit in an ever-changing environment — is not creative and is incapable of modifying even one single molecule of an organism.

    “Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability.”
    — Ronald A. Fisher

    Mr. Fischer, you are dead wrong. All that the elimination of organisms accomplishes is that potentially valuable information is lost. So the opposite is true: if evolution is a search for information, then natural selection hampers that search.

    Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested.
    — Richard Dawkins

    Richard, we can forgive Darwin for attaching magical properties to the removal of organisms, but you should know better.

    EugeneS: … novelty cannot be created by elimination. … Novelty must exist BEFORE it is naturally selected. This leaves evolutionists with only one novelty generator – chance. As simple as that. But I always forget that to expect an understanding from them is too much. Even Dawkins cannot get his head around it… Not only does evolutionism lacks empirical support but it also lacks substance.

    Hear! Hear!

    “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive life form – perhaps a self-replicating molecule – that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. ”
    — Jerry A. Coyne

    Sigh …

Leave a Reply