Evolutionist: Science Doesn’t Lie

Groov: Does not matter. The number of possible events in our observed cosmos cannot exceed 1 in 10^150 of the space so a blind sample driven by chance and/or necessity cannot credibly pick up anything that is rare on such a scope, where multiple, properly configured parts required for function will be rare, as the constraints to function in relevant ways will be pretty much fine tuned. Needles and haystacks again. KF kairosfocus

I have noticed that Lincoln does tend to post, and then run away when challenged, but I too would love to hear what is this theory of evolution he mentioned, that most Christians believe in. phoodoo

THX Wallstreeter. BTW for those interested, new function requiring 300 mutations would require Darwinian evolution to search out assuming for the sake of argument, one correct temporal sequence for the mutations to actually express, for the function to be realized. The number of sequence permutations would be 300! which is too large for my machine to calculate since it maxes at 10^307. This is the size of the search space that Darwinian evolution would be traversing, assuming only one correct sequence. groovamos

Groovesamus, I was one of those who supported evolution blindly going through high school and college simply because this was what I was brainwashed into thinking by my biology teachers and the courses I was taught in college. I never even heard of intelligent design until 4 years back. It was the flimsy to no evidence for Macroevolution that caused me to doubt my belief in evolution and finally it was the signature in the cell video by Stephen Meyer that caused me to discard it completely. Most Christians like me simply believed evolutiin was true because that was what was repeated to us going through the educational system. They didn't allow anything else in. It may take a way but in the end lies will eventually be exposed, and I hope I will be thre when that paradigm shift finally takes place and we can get back to real, honest to goodness science. wallstreeter43

Roy: P.S. Good luck with the PhD Thanks Finally, you might want to revise your maths. 10^100 mutations is more than a billion mutations for each atom in each picosecond of the Earth’s history. Some-one attempting a PhD in engineering ought to be able to estimate numbers far better than that. How many permutations of positions in relationship to each other of all the atoms say on planet earth at each microsecond (to be generous) in earth's history are possible, in say spherical coordinates up to 10^ km radius? You think that 10^100 would possibly be enough to cover all of them? Incidentally, you might reflect that “Darwinian macroevolution” does not depend on mutations being uncorrelated, and really doesn’t include anything in genetics at all, since Darwin didn’t know about genes or DNA or nucleotides or anything else discovered long after he formulated his theory. Well then, lets just admit that something is ordering the sequence of mutations IN ORDER to effect novel function. If you guys insist that this cannot happen, its YOUR theory (you know the one that you construct your life philosophy around), you then are responsible for showing me that the same 300 mutations or so can happen in any order with equal probability. AND that each one confers survival advantage no matter the sequence of the expressed mutations that give the bacterium new function. Until you do this you cannot address my points and win. groovamos

Random wrt mutations means they are happenstance events, ie genetic accidents. And no one can produce testable hypotheses based on accumulations of genetic accidents. That is why evolutionism is untestable and not science. Joe

Well, the definition usually used form “random” in this context is that the mutations that occur are not related to how useful or otherwise they might prove to be. If you want statistical correlation I recall seeing some analyses of point mutations that worked out the relative probabilities of mutating to each of the remaining nucleotides*. Where have you been asking?

On Cornelius’s blog.

Seriously? You think Cornelius Hunter's blog is the best place to find a detailed definition of "random mutation"? I suggest you find somewhere where you can ask your question unencumbered by the proximity of fallacies and falsehoods. I recommend TheologyWeb if it ever recovers from its current offlineness.

More importantly, why have you been asking rather than looking for yourself? Like most people would get, if I can get someone else to try to do it, it’s a better deal for me, importantly.

But not for them. If some-one posts a link to a research article documenting "say 350 “random mutations” that enable a bacterium to metabolize a novel nutrient," and you want to follow it up, you can do that yourself. If you can't find the additional information you want, then it might be appropriate to ask some-one else to help, but if you aren't willing to invest any time yourself why should any-one else? I'm usually happy to oblige with references or pointers or brief answers (as above), but I don't waste my time trying to help those who won't help themselves.

Or did you have some more specific criteria in mind? Yes I did and you missed it: DARWINIAN MACROEVOLUTION. Meaning an application of such which absolutely depends upon all of the 10^10 ~ 10^400 or so mutations, having given rise to novel form or function of interest in the application, being UNCORRELATED. In other words, some application which would not be possible unless all 10^100 mutations involved in the macroevolutionary history were absolutely uncorrelated.

Not everything has a practical application. If your criteria for accepting something as true is that a direct practical application of it can be found, there's a whole host of knowledge you should reject. Incidentally, you might reflect that "Darwinian macroevolution" does not depend on mutations being uncorrelated, and really doesn't include anything in genetics at all, since Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA or nucleotides or anything else discovered long after he formulated his theory. Asking for support for Darwinian macroevolution and then rejecting any responses because they aren't relevant to a particular aspect of genetics is likely to be regarded as goalpost-shifting. Finally, you might want to revise your maths. 10^100 mutations is more than a billion mutations for each atom in each picosecond of the Earth's history. Some-one attempting a PhD in engineering ought to be able to estimate numbers far better than that. Roy Roy

Roy, you are the one who is down a rabbit hole! Darwinism is not, nor has ever been, 'science'. Moreover, Darwinism has contributed nothing to science except to led it down false rabbit trails! Euthanasia, Vestigial Organs, and junk DNA come readily to mind. Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 bornagain77

Roy, actually contrary to the high esteem you hold for your own opinion in this matter, ...

Still nothing about the difference between the status of a field and the status of the results from that field. If you ever feel up to admitting you misrepresented LP, I might respond to your rabbit trails. But I'm not going to abet your attempts to avoid responsibility for your false claims. Roy Roy

Genetic algorithms is the evolutionist's way of saying trial and error testing, and such designed programs with an end goal have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. sixthbook

Roy, in regards to providing a rigid statistical correlation for random mutations, I think, after perusing your 'quick search' article, you really don't appreciate just how difficult this question groovamos asked you is to answer: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012 Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html How this random postulate of atheists plays out in science can be traced out further. This following quote is very informative in that regards: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness And when we try to ‘be a little more explicit’ in regards to randomness we find: “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. As to whether or not the structure of the genome displays an overall random (i.e. junky) pattern or not: Skittle: A 2-Dimensional Genome Visualization Tool Josiah D Seaman1* and John C Sanford - 2009 Results This program first creates a 2-dimensional nucleotide display by assigning four colors to the four nucleotides, and then text-wraps to a user adjustable width. This nucleotide display is accompanied by a "repeat map" which comprehensively displays all local repeating units, based upon analysis of all possible local alignments. Skittle includes a smooth-zooming interface which allows the user to analyze genomic patterns at any scale. Skittle is especially useful in identifying and analyzing tandem repeats, including repeats not normally detectable by other methods. However, Skittle is also more generally useful for analysis of any genomic data, allowing users to correlate published annotations and observable visual patterns, and allowing for sequence and construct quality control. Conclusions Preliminary observations using Skittle reveal intriguing genomic patterns not otherwise obvious, including structured variations inside tandem repeats. The striking visual patterns revealed by Skittle appear to be useful for hypothesis development, and have already led the authors to theorize that imperfect tandem repeats could act as information carriers, and may form tertiary structures within the interphase nucleus. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/452 The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code - March 2013 Excerpt: Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality,,, http://gencodesignal.org/ further notes:: Fred Sanger, Protein Sequences and Evolution Versus Science - Are Proteins Random? Cornelius Hunter - November 2013 Excerpt: Standard tests of randomness show that English text, and protein sequences, are not random.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/11/fred-sanger-protein-sequences-and.html Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin - September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only(!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html Knockout Mice Study: Long Noncoding RNAs "Play Central Roles in Mammalian Development and Physiology" - Casey Luskin January 16, 2014 Excerpt: After ENCODE's finding that the vast majority of our DNA is transcribed into RNA, many Darwinian biologists have comforted themselves with the belief that most of that RNA is still useless, and our cells are full of "junk RNA." But a few independent-minded folks sought out evidence of function for that RNA. And they've consistently found it. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/knockout_mice_s081221.html bornagain77

me an example of ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL APPLICATION for the “truism” Darwinian macroevolution.

antibiotics

Great. Must be as skeptic. Upright BiPed

Where have you been asking? On Cornelius's blog. Huge numbers of angry, sniping, insulting posts by Darwinists there. More importantly, why have you been asking rather than looking for yourself? Like most people would get, if I can get someone else to try to do it, it's a better deal for me, importantly. Since the raving Darwinists spend such huge amounts of efforts, and I do mean HUGE, coming to these blogs, writing long posts like the above somewhat snide one by Lincoln (questioning the OP's contributions to his field,) -- and others putting so much energy into invective, checking back every half hour some of them, then a simple request by me should be not much work for them by comparison. So when one of them links a paper documenting say 350 "random mutations" that enable a bacterium to metabolize a novel nutrient, then guess what I do. I ask for the reports by researchers who have drilled down and actually established some statistics -- like establishing all of the correlation among the expressed mutations -- ALL OF THEM. Just calling them "random" doesn't work for some educated people. I’d have expected some-one to at least mention ensuring full courses of antibiotics are taken, or gene transplants, or gene therapy, or choice of animal subjects in drug research, or use of porcine insulin, or xenotransplants, or the use of genetic algorithms (not a direct application, but still owing their existence in part to evolutionary theory). Or did you have some more specific criteria in mind? Yes I did and you missed it: DARWINIAN MACROEVOLUTION. Meaning an application of such which absolutely depends upon all of the 10^10 ~ 10^400 or so mutations, having given rise to novel form or function of interest in the application, being UNCORRELATED. In other words, some application which would not be possible unless all 10^100 mutations involved in the macroevolutionary history were absolutely uncorrelated. If they are not uncorrelated then just admit that this is the sloppy way the word "random" is tossed around by you guys as the public is being bamboozled. < groovamos

Roy, actually contrary to the high esteem you hold for your own opinion in this matter, since there is no criteria by which Darwinism may be falsified mathematically by empirical findings then Darwinism DOES NOT even qualify as a hard science in the first place and is properly thought of as a pseudo-science, regardless of what a majority of people may believe (whether they have letters behind their name or not)! That renders all other discussions on the matter moot as far as 'science' is concerned since testability is paramount! Quantum Theory and General Relativity are tested to more and more extreme levels of accuracy all the time yet Darwinism has no mathematical basis to test against to see if it is true. Theory? 1.Physics theories are generally compact and mathematical. Evolution has no compact set of equations, in fact no equations at all. 2.One can deduce very specific and precise predictions from physics theories. Evolution's predictions are nowhere near so specific. 3.Physics theories' predictions may be tested experimentally to high mathematical precision. Evolution's predictions are more general, and don't lend themselves to precise testing. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/theory.htm IN FACT in comparisons with other pseudo-sciences Darwinism ranks lower than most all others in terms of overall merit: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience bornagain77

Hey Roy — I’m an intelligent design proponent who does a lot more than “parrot irrelevant snippets”. One of the things on my to do list is finish writing a thesis in engineering for the PhD. That’s a lot more than parroting snippets.

Cool. Is said thesis supportive of Intelligent Design?

One thing you Darwinists might do beyond parroting snippets is give me an example of ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL APPLICATION for the “truism” Darwinian macroevolution. I have asked this of your types numerous times. And I have received none.

Referring to evolution as a "truism" might cause your correspondents to not consider you worth responding to. Still, I'd have expected some-one to at least mention ensuring full courses of antibiotics are taken, or gene transplants, or gene therapy, or choice of animal subjects in drug research, or use of porcine insulin, or xenotransplants, or the use of genetic algorithms (not a direct application, but still owing their existence in part to evolutionary theory). Or did you have some more specific criteria in mind?

I have also asked for a precise definition of “random mutation” which includes reference to statistical correlation. And I have received none.

Well, the definition usually used form "random" in this context is that the mutations that occur are not related to how useful or otherwise they might prove to be. If you want statistical correlation I recall seeing some analyses of point mutations that worked out the relative probabilities of mutating to each of the remaining nucleotides*. Where have you been asking? More importantly, why have you been asking rather than looking for yourself? Roy P.S. Good luck with the PhD *A quick search finds this article which suggests that mutations AG and CT are much more likely than AT, AC, GC or GT. Roy

I wrote:

LP said no such thing. There is a difference between deciding whether a field is part of science, and determining the results of science in that field. LP was talking about the former. Your Crichton quote addresses the latter. Intelligent design might fare better if its proponents were able to do more than parrot irrelevant snippets.

Sure enough, bornagain77 responded with this question which has nothing to do with the difference between the status of a field and the status of results from that field:

Please Roy, do tell us exactly and precisely why Darwinism should be considered a science instead of a pseudo-science since it has no mathematical basis in which to falsify it:

and then proceeded to parroted about a dozen equally irrelevant snippets. Calling him Mickey Mouse might be appropriate, except Mickey actually used those big ears, whereas bornagain77 is clearly write-only. Roy Roy

Intelligent design might fare better if its proponents were able to do more than parrot irrelevant snippets. Hey Roy -- I'm an intelligent design proponent who does a lot more than "parrot irrelevant snippets". One of the things on my to do list is finish writing a thesis in engineering for the PhD. That's a lot more than parroting snippets. One thing you Darwinists might do beyond parroting snippets is give me an example of ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL APPLICATION for the "truism" Darwinian macroevolution. I have asked this of your types numerous times. And I have received none. I have also asked for a precise definition of "random mutation" which includes reference to statistical correlation. And I have received none. Some science huh? groovamos

Roy, well by golly I'm all ears. Call me Mickey Mouse for the big ears I have in this matter. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/d4/20130713135902!Mickey_Mouse.png :) Please Roy, do tell us exactly and precisely why Darwinism should be considered a science instead of a pseudo-science since it has no mathematical basis in which to falsify it: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.” Gregory Chaitin Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor: Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/ ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such: "Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved." - Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this: Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA ,, I hope neo-Darwinists can help us to designate a more rigid threshold for neo-Darwinism, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, neo-Darwinism is in actuality the pseudo-science they accuse Intelligent Design of being! bornagain77

Lincoln Phipps, contrary to your assertions, ‘science’ is not established by consensus.

LP said no such thing. There is a difference between deciding whether a field is part of science, and determining the results of science in that field. LP was talking about the former. Your Crichton quote addresses the latter. Intelligent design might fare better if its proponents were able to do more than parrot irrelevant snippets. Roy Roy

Yes nightlight- it would be great if everyone used the same terms and words the same way. However evolutionists equivocate all of the time, ie observed variation = all of life’s diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some prokaryotic-like organism via accumulations of genetic accidents. Joe

Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? - David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014 Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum -- such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about. Hence the need for a formal recognition of the individual who has been the proudest and most successful censor of the preceding year. Who will it be? The Center for Science & Culture will be taking nominations for the next couple of weeks, through Wednesday, January 29. We'll have some suggestions and reflections for you in the meantime, to stimulate your thinking. Contact us with your suggestions by emailing the editor of ENV. We'll deliberate carefully, and make our announcement on Tuesday, February 4, in ample time to get ready for Darwin Day. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/censor_of_the_y081261.html Does anybody even come close to Coyne as the Grand Inquisitor of Darwinism? This should be a slam for him! And I'm sure if they sent Coyne a plaque proclaiming that he is 'censor of the year' he would consider it an honor instead of a badge of shame that it would be. :) bornagain77

@Joe #10 -- I know, but he says it in YEC language. If you push him, he will clarify what he really meant and say roughly what you said. It is as if he wants to have it both ways, which is a pity since it squanders his otherwise insightful, thought provoking observations. I don't understand why is he preaching to the YEC choir who are already on his side (at least), instead of talking to the curious kids being indoctrinated into neo-Darwinist religion, where he could have some real effect. The worst part is that the neo-Darwinist priesthood can and does use his articles to cheaply dismiss and inoculate kids from there on against those genuine and interesting discoveries supporting ID. Any time later the kids run into these same facts but in a real ID context, they will just roll their eyes, nah, that's that creationist nonsense and go back to snapchatting. You can in fact see a nice illustration of this propaganda recipe in an earlier post in this thread from a neo-Darwinist opposing Cornelius, conflating the process of evolution with a theory of that process and that with neo-Darwinian RM+NS theory of such process. That kind of sleight of hand is helped and amplified great deal by none other than Cornelius himself who routinely conflates all three under the same term "evolution" -- the process itself, any theory of such process and neo-Darwinian theory of the process. With friends like that... nightlight

LP writes,

Many if not most other Christians have no problems with the current scientific theory of evolution.

Consensus isn't science.

Most if not all science academies that are the professional representatives for working scientists consider evolution a scientific endeavour.,/blockquote> Consensus isn't science.

US courts have established that evolution is a topic within the remit of science and not religion and obviously non-religious people too accept the science of evolution.

The US court system has nothing to do with science and, besides, consensus isn't science.

So throughout the world, both religious and non-religious across the science profession and legal profession all consider evolution to be science.

The nonreligious have no problem with evolution because it removes that pesky "God" problem. Your argument is fallacious. Try again.

Barb

nightlight- When CH says "evolution" he is talking baout the BS claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some prokaryotic-like organism via accumulations of genetic accidents. Microevolution is just variation to YECs Joe

Cornelius said it well here:

To be sure, scientists can debate over how best to understand and interpret the many observations we have from science. And one can find many observations that appear to support evolutionary theory.

Science can provide us with evidence, observations, etc., but it is people who then interpret that evidence and interpretation is not science. Evolution is an interpretation of the evidence. Science neither lies nor tells the truth. It just reveals evidence. Humans sometimes lie and sometimes make mistaken interpretations of the evidence. That is not the fault of science, but just because a person is a scientist, it doesn't mean that he is more trustworthy or less fallible than anyone else. For instance, when we see so much stasis in the fossil record, how should we interpret that? As evidence for or against evolution? Or how about convergence? Is that evidence for or against evolution? A case can be made for either. Science can give us facts. It does not "tell" us anything tjguy

Quite the opposite—evolution is astronomically unlikely from a scientific perspective.

By that logic, sciences and technologies don't evolve either. Doesn't it take a lot more intelligence to evolve science and technology from their levels in middle ages to their present levels than to stay stuck with the medieval science and technology? Evolution is in fact the most potent amplifier of the ID argument. The literalist YEC "allies" are the worst enemies of the scientific intelligent design and the chief reason that ID, despite the rapidly growing body of evidence pointing against the neo-Darwinist relic and toward ID, is still outside of natural science and science classes. nightlight

Science may not lie but evolutionists definitely lie. For example Lincoln Phipps continues to talk of an alleged theory of evolution and yet he cannot reference it. Joe

Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the 'consensus' party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists:

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry - book Excerpt: This book takes a look at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution. In one camp are the faithful followers of the long-standing theory of natural selection promulgated by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. This "survival of the fittest" theory, according to author Suzan Mazur, is no longer the scientific cornerstone of biology and has been challenged for decades. In the other camp are those challengers who want to steer evolutionary science in a more honest, scientifically accurate direction. However, the Darwinian theory has become a political powerhouse brand that is hard to unseat because of the money and power associated with it. The Altenberg 16 is about a group of evolution scientists who met in 2008 in Austria to discuss and attempt to tell the truth about this "brand.",,, http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Altenberg_16.html?id=wk2FfQQ_DmsC

As to scientific repeatability, ID has scientific repeatability down in spades. Every time you write a single sentence, Mr. Phipps, you yourself are in fact demonstrating the central tenet of ID in that intelligence can accomplish something that no one has ever seen purely material processes accomplish. i.e. You are demonstrating that Intelligence, and only Intelligence, has the capacity to generate non-trivial levels of functional information. In fact, only Intelligence, through extreme effort, has ever demonstrated the capacity to design a protein for a specific function from scratch! (references will be provided upon request) Moreover Mr. Phipps, as you were shown the other day, despite your repeated assertion that only naturalistic causes can be considered science (i.e. methodological naturalism) the fact of the matter is that the assumption of naturalism within science leads to the epistemological failure of science itself:

It might interest you to know, Mr. Phipps, that Alvin Plantinga has now shown that assuming naturalism as the driving force of Darwinian evolution is an epistemologically self-defeating assumption:,,, Also of note, assuming naturalism for the origin of the universe is also epistemologically self-defeating: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/controversy-swirls-around-last-common-ancestor-of-placental-mammal/#comment-487566

As to your simplistic definition of evolution as, “Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time”, all I can say that, much like methodological naturalism, that is a very self serving and simplistic definition. No one has ever disputed that children are different than their parents. i.e. No one disputes LIMITED change within 'kind' (i.e. within a basic body plan). What is disputed is that material processes can generate novel functional information/complexity above and beyong what is already present in life. Indeed what SHOULD BE the primary question in science for evolutionists, a question that is NEVER EVER honestly addressed by them, is, since life is overflowing with complex, extremely integrated, functional information, functional information that our best computer programmers can only dream of imitating, "can purely material processes EVER generate non-trivial levels of functional information?"

The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html

bornagain77

Lincoln Phipps, contrary to your assertions, 'science' is not established by consensus. The plain fact that 'science' is not, nor has ever been, established by consensus is beautifully captured in this following lecture by the late Michael Crichton:

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. (From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Moreover, Mr Phipps, as to how Atheists have been able to overtake the original 'consensus' of Design, and how they now maintain an overall consensus, despite having no basis, nor empirical (i.e. experimental) support, in science is Orwellian in its telling. Here are a (very) few notes in that regards to get the point across:

1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html "Evolution is the only 'scientific theory' that needs laws to protect it!" Author Unknown EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U Slaughter of the Dissidents - Dr. Jerry Bergman - June 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0 “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

bornagain77

Many if not most other Christians have no problems with the current scientific theory of evolution.

Most people in general believe what they're being fed by the media/schools without further questioning. The more frequently it's being repeated the more people believe it, simple as that. And while I agree that science can not lie (as it is obviously not a person), scientists can and probably do it much more often than one might think. They're human after all and especially today where funding is more important than anything there's not much room left for idealism especially when the chips are down. This is an interesting site: Retractionwatch Sebestyen

That video is a spoof of Miley Cyrus' wrecking ball. Why she would want to spoof that video and discuss evolution at the same time, I have no idea. fryether

Yes, one hates to use the word "lie" but in this case Cornelius Hunter wallows in the delight of the word. Many if not most other Christians have no problems with the current scientific theory of evolution. Most if not all science academies that are the professional representatives for working scientists consider evolution a scientific endeavour. US courts have established that evolution is a topic within the remit of science and not religion and obviously non-religious people too accept the science of evolution. So throughout the world, both religious and non-religious across the science profession and legal profession all consider evolution to be science. But Cornelius Hunter does not ! He thinks that Evolution is not science. He claims "by anyone’s definition" but as we can see given the wide support that evolution is science, what he really means is "by Hunter's definition". Evolution has a simple definition along the lines of "Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time" so that just means that "as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed" (borrowing from Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog). In fact Theistic Evolution and ID supporters will agree with this fact - it's the cause that is under debate ! Hunter's claim though is that none of this is science. He's the odd man out. So how do we resolve this incongruence ? It's not Hunter's ignorance as he claims to be involved with biology. People can be wrong. We've all screwed up somewhere and the hard part is admitting that. The problem with Hunter has to be other commitments he has and they must trump all information to the contrary. But we're never privy to these other commitments. Hunter doesn't seem to do primary research to advance (his) science as all he seems to do is criticise other scientists' work with his opinion. As the saying goes, he is entitled to his opinion but he mistakes these for facts. If Hunter produced primary science that advanced our knowledge then those works would speak for themselves but until such time it is reasonable that we can use the words of the "American Loons" blog, "Entrenched crackpot with non-negligible though limited influence" Far more accurate than just a liar. Lincoln Phipps

How many ways to add to this... "Science doesn't necessarily tell what's true either." "Science doesn't lie, but people do." JGuy