Intelligent Design

Evolution Professor: The Same Infection, In the Same Place, In the Same Gene

Spread the love

In recent posts I have reviewed several problems with evolutionary thinking as evident in the Nelson-Velasco debate, including non scientific claims that only evolution can explain biologyarguments from authority, appeals to unknown or unlikely evolutionary mechanisms and pathways such as in the hypothetical evolution of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and ALUs, false claims about the empirical scientific evidence, such as with the ORFans and the so-called nested hierarchy, and appeals to a fictional track record of success of the theory of evolution. All of these problems are typical but if you stop there then you don’t really understand evolution. For while these may seem to be serious problems, they are dwarfed by the proofs of evolution.  Read more

4 Replies to “Evolution Professor: The Same Infection, In the Same Place, In the Same Gene

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    atheists have their theology, which is basically: “God, if he existed, wouldn’t do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn’t (do it that way).”

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    To expand a bit more on post 1. It is impossible to do science without theological presuppositions. In fact modern science was only able to be brought to a sustained maturity in the Judeo-Christian west:

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.

    Dr. Meyer on the Christian History of Science – video

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe(d) in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)

    ,,It is not really all that surprising to find that there weren’t any atheists at the founding of modern science, since assuming materialistic premises, of chaos at the foundation of reality instead of assuming a rationally ordered universe, leads to the epistemological failure of science,,

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself).

    Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga – video

    Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage”
    Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video

    In fact, and also not so surprisingly, atheistic neo-Darwinism has no rigid mathematical, nor empirical, basis in which it may be considered properly scientific,,

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Part II

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, since Theological presuppositions are necessary to rationally practice science in the first place, how do atheists maintain the illusion of being ‘scientific’? It is, as alluded to in post 1, (and as Dr. Hunter has repeatably pointed out) by sneaking theological presuppositions in and pronouncing on what God would and would not do in this universe. In fact, Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’, which ironically contains not a single example of the origin of a single species, is rife with theological argumentation.

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

    Some may say, ‘Well that was then, but surely now we have abundant empirical evidence that Darwinism is true.’,, But, in reality, the progress of science has not been kind to Darwin’s thesis,,,, despite 150+ plus years of gathering evidence the evidence for Darwinism has failed to materialize, while the evidence against Darwinism,(molecular machines, origin of life, Cambrian, information theory, etc..) has gotten far worse. All the while, theological argumentation from Darwinists is still rampant.

    Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, ‘Darwin On Trial’, in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:

    Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video

    In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:

    Refuting The Myth Of ‘Bad Design’ vs. Intelligent Design – William Lane Craig – video

    In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning,, John Avise actually used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since God, as Darwinists have portrayed Him, since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:

    It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
    Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome”
    There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. – Dr. Hunter

    Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
    Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) – 148,413

    Contrary to what Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism! ,,, That that point should have to even be pointed out is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian thinking truly is.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    A Convergent Dichotomy John Lennox on the Axioms & Implications of Science – video

Leave a Reply