Reply to: Re: evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!
I guess I missed your question earlier, so let me try it now. I would say that the most telling argument against naturalistic evolution is the second law of thermodynamics. It is the overall tendency of the universe to break down into smaller, simpler parts. But, it is the overall tendency of living organisms to evolve into larger, more complex forms. I have always considered this another bolster to my faith in a God that allows living organisms to break the rules.
I am also aware that there are arguments as to why the second law of thermodynamics can be circumvented by living organisms, but that wasn't the question.
Cliff H
Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:20:51 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...[
>
>>SJ>Maybe Richard (or any other evolutionist) would be able to post what they
>>>consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution?
>>>
>>>I have asked this question from time to time on this List, and from memory I
>>>have *never* yet had a reply.
>
>SB>Interesting question.
>
>When I said I "have *never* yet had a reply", I mean to the actual >question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most telling points >against evolution?"
>
>Some evolutionists have replied, but they *always* re-phrase the question >to mean something else. Susan here is no exception!
>
>It appears that most (if not all) evolutionists are unable to even form in >their minds the question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most >telling points against evolution?" >
>SB>I think you are assuming that someone is in doubt...
>
>Note how Susan's reply rephrases the question. I asked "... any ... >evolutionist ... what they consider `the most telling points against ... >Evolution?" >
>But Susan tries to change the subject into my state of mind ("assuming")
>about evolutionists state of mind ("doubt")! >
>SB>...about whether evolution occured. >
>And this is the usual retreat to a vague definition that cannot be falsified.
>
>In the past Susan has defined "Evolution" as "a change in the gene frequency >of a population over time:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:49:44 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population over time
>
>[...]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
>SB>Except for a few creationists there are not many.
>
>In fact even "creationists" would not "doubt" that!
>
>SB>I can think of lots of things that would falisfy evolution, if true.
>
>I was not asking for "things that would falisfy evolution", although
>in the past Susan has AFAIK only proposed such `risky' :-) propositions
>as:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 16:35:07 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>but that would not *falsify* ID. Scientific theories must have concievable
>>conditions under which they could be proved untrue. For example if we *did*
>>find a reliably dated fossil of a human in cambrian strata, that would
>>prove evolution to be untrue.
>
>[...]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
>But how would that falsify Susan's definition of "Evolution" as "a change in >the gene frequency of a population over time"? >
>SB>But that's about it.
>
>That's about what? Susan has not answered the original question:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Maybe Richard (or any other evolutionist) would be able to post what they
>consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
>Which only goes to prove my point that evolutionists apparently cannot
>bring themeselves to admit there are any "telling points against...
>Evolution"! This is evidence that to them it is not just a scientific
>theory but an object of `religious faith'.
>
>SB>Now.
>
>Here comes a counter-attack! Which only proves my point!
>
>SB>What is the evidence against the helio-centric solar system? What is the
>>evidence against the Theory of Gravity? It's only a theory after all.
>>What's the evidence against the the existence of the American Civil War?
>
>I wasn't asking about "the helio-centric solar system ...the Theory of >Gravity" (whatever that is) and "the American Civil War". There is no >disagreement between Susan and I (and in fact probably anyone on this >planet on these things.
>
>I was talking about "Evolution", which is after all what this Reflector is >about.
>
>SB>What evidence do *you* have against it? >
>I have *plenty* of "evidence...against it" (i.e. Evolution). But my question >was whether any *evolutionist* on the List "would be able to post what >they consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution"? >
>SB>The Cambrian Explosion ain't it.
>
>Which is interesting in itself. At least Darwin admitted it was a major >difficulty:
>
> "Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before > the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, > as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the > Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods > the world swarmed with living creatures. .... To the question why > we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these > assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give > no satisfactory answer." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," > 1928, reprint, p.315) >
>Susan (and most other evolutionists on this List) reminds me of what I was >just reading about Herbert Spencer:
>
> "His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof. > Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious > scientist would have been justified at least in suspending judgement. > ... for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of > evolution derivative." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution and Society: A > Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge University > Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.205) >
>That is for Susan, and indeed most (if not all) evolutionists in my >experience, "natural causation" (i.e. Metaphysical Naturalism) is "primary" >and "the theory of evolution" is derivative."
>
>This includes BTW those Naturalistic Evolutionists who happen to be >Christians (who I have only recently realised I have wrongly been calling >Theistic Evolutionists).
>
>Thus Susan, and indeed most (if not all) evolutionists in my experience, >does not really need much (if any) scientific evidence for "evolution" and >they just ignore any evidence against it. It is the *metaphysics* that is all-
>important.
>
>After all, if there is no God, or if there is a God but He never intervenes in >natural history, then it does not matter about the evidence. It simply >*must* have been by "evolution"!
>
>SB>Even we were 100% certain that was the actual Christian Creation Event(tm) >>things have been evolving ever since.
>
>If "Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population over time", >then they sure have! >
>[...]
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be >no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in >evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his >belief fall by it." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, >Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832)
>Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <evolution-owner-Cliff_Hamrick=baylor.edu@udomo3.calvin.edu>
>Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2])
> by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA30304
> for <Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU>; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 02:58:25 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu)
> by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495)
> with SMTP id <01JTRD3D4N6OFEWZM5@baylor.edu> for
> Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU (ORCPT rfc822;Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu); Mon,
> 4 Sep 2000 02:58:16 CDT
>Received: (qmail 12506 invoked by uid 27); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:57:41 +0000
>Received: (qmail 12500 invoked from network); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:57:40 +0000
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP;
> Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:57:40 +0000
>Received: from mail.m.iinet.net.au
> (IDENT:qremote@opera3.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.51])
> by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e847w7B14873 for
> <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (qmail 19691 invoked by uid 666); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:58:02 +0000
>Received: from reggae-18-180.nv.iinet.net.au (HELO steves.home) (203.59.80.180)
> by mail.m.iinet.net.au with SMTP; Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:58:02 +0000
>Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:48:37 +0800
>From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Subject: Re: evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!
>Sender: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
>To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
>Reply-to: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Message-id: <200009040758.e847w7B14873@ursa.calvin.edu>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows 95 (4.0.1111)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Precedence: bulk
>Delivered-to: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
>Status: >
Common sense isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 15:26:54 EDT