Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian-
>
> Likely the evolution of the photon from the big bang is not known, just like the origination of the first biological life. Does that prove that it didn't evolve- because there's no answer?

No it doesn't - but you claimed to be able to explain how anything we
chose to name evolved. You now admit that you can't. Case dismissed.

Furthermore, I do not accept that the only alternative to "evolution"
is "creation by Divine Fiat" I never said that was the alternative,
and I'm at a loss as to why you should think I might say that.

Look. The Big Bang happened. All the matter appeared at that time.
It wasn't an evolutionary event, because that implies that there was a
time before the Big Bang. The standard theory says that time started
at the Big bang. There are competing theories now which start to
imagine there might have been a time before the Big Bang, but we
certainly don't know that.

In 1978, I attended a public lecture at Cambridge university given by
physicist Murray Gell-Mann. At the end of the lecture he took
questions from the audience. Someone asked "Would you care to
speculate on what happened before the Big Bang?". Gell-Mann replied
"NO!". Then turned to Stephen Hawking who was in his wheel chair in
the front row and said ".. er that is the right answer, isn't it?".

Elsewhere you require that evolution involves increase in complexity.
Well you can't get simpler than an elementary particle, so evidently
they didn't evolve and if you claim they did then you're contradicting
yourself.

Iain

>
> Look at the big picture. What are the different hypotheses available, and which have the best evidence for how the photon came to be.
>
> One hypothesis is the theory of evolution.
>
> What are the competing theories for the existence of photons? Is one ID... that God created these photons by fiat? I don't think the ID position says that, does it?
>
> It looks to me like there is only one hypothesis to consider. The only one formulated is evolution- physical particles came from the energy explosion of the big-bang.
>
> Maybe the other is "God did it, but I don't know how, and it wasn't evolution?" Is that your alternative? If not, please tell me so I can see which hypothesis to compare to evolution. If you offer no competing theories, why should I disband the most reasonable one to date?
>
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:55 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> Ian said in an earlier email:
>> "But let's take a different tack. Since you think everything can be explained by evolution, please explain how elementary particles such as the photon, the quark, and the Higgs Boson (if it turns out it exists), evolved."
>>
>> If you don't think those particles evolved, what is your alternative hypothesis? Yes- it is design by fiat. Are you saying God spoke these into existence then everything else later evolved? What is a better alternative hypothesis to cosmological, chemical, etc. evolution?
>
> Answer the question. You claimed EVERYTHING evolved. Don't go dodging
> the issue. I asked you how the Higgs Boson, the photon, etc evolved. I
> didn't say it was designed by fiat. If you really want to help other
> YEC's then you really need to improve your listening skills.
>
> Iain
>
> Iain
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.