Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

_{Gil Dodgen

September 9, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

Comments

Evolution may be “undirected and without purpose”, but it can still be guided.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't "guided" and "directed," along with their prefixed descendents "unguided" and "undirected," still synonymous? If not, I'd like to make a special offer to everyone at UD: A guided one-week tour to the historic Alamo City where I live. Just fifty bucks. It'll be great. Honest... :)jstanley01_{September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

warehuff you state: "Guided evolution is a good a way to design something without having to do all of the tedious work." On the face of it, what you say seems plausible but when we get into the details you scenario actually greatly increases the amount of tedious work for the Designer. Case in point, is it easier for man to design a new operating system for a computer by 'bottom up' incrementally changing a existing program one bit at a time, maintaining functionality of the computer system for each step the entire time, or is it easier for man to design a new operating system from the top down, in the proper hierarchal structure, so as to accomplish the desired function? The answer should be obvious that the 'tedious work' is greatly decreased by the top down approach. But to make it even more clear, the 'operating system of life is far more complex than the operating system of any computer made by man: Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm This presents a huge polyfuctional/polyconstrained problem for the 'tedious work' to be accomplished for Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even its confused step child of Theistic Evolution, is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained to random mutations by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford. S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation. This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ&hl=en As well warehuff, the fossil record is anything but friendly to the idea of gradual processes creating major phyla/kinds on earth: Here is a fairly good outline of the fossil record as it truly stands: The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution. A major adaptive radiation is the simultaneous appearance of many diverse forms of a group, for example, birds, with wide geographical distribution. The appearance of the invertebrate phyla in the Cambrian was a major adaptive radiation. Besides the invertebrate phyla, the fossil record shows that vertebrates have undergone so many major adaptive radiations that it is the norm for their appearance. Carroll writes: "the phylogenies of all major vertebrate groups show an irregular, episodic history of occasional large-scale radiations followed by the long-term survival of a relatively small number of basically distinct structural and/or adaptive types." These radiations are inexplicable by evolution because so many diverse forms appear virtually simultaneously without fossil evidence of interrelationships. Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are: a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today. b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown. c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish. d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown. e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record. f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found. g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown. i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown. j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds. http://tellall.org/fossils.htm So warehuff, basically your scenario of 'guided evolution' avoiding the 'tedious work', while maybe useful once a major phyla/kind appears, is for practical purposes of what we know 'scientifically' to be severely lacking in empirical support.bornagain77_{September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

I don't deny that God-guided evolution could be the case, but this would mean that Darwin was wrong, and theistic Darwinists want to claim that Darwin was right but God guided evolution. Darwinian evolution is, after all, supposed to be the product of random variation, not planned or guided variation. As Denyse has pointed out, theistic evolution is a solution to a problem that no longer exists.GilDodgen_{September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Gil, I think you're selling theistic evolution short. Evolution may be "undirected and without purpose", but it can still be guided. Think of an apple sapling a few inches high. If left to itself, it will grow into an apple tree with a straight trunk and a conventional "tree shape". This would correspond to unguided evolution. A gardener can train the sapling's trunk and branches and tie them into a different shape. After a while the ties can be removed and the adult tree will retain that shape. You can even weave the branches together if you wish. This would correspond to theistic evolution. I don't understand why people deny God the ability to shape evolution in this way. They seem to insist that the only way God can make an apple tree is to personally select every atom in the tree and place it in exactly the right place. Guided evolution is a good a way to design something without having to do all of the tedious work. Google "espalier" or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espalier for examples.warehuff_{September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply