Skip to comments.The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire…
Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire
The recent notice that Harvard was going to engage in advocacy research (its difficult to call the advocacy science) shows how concerned the evolution camp is about the theory of intelligent design. Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution has many holes. The only way evolution continues to survive is because people dont actually stop to think about the absurd things that evolution requires one to accept on totally blind faith.
If in fact evolution were truly a science, then according to the scientific method, challenges to the theory of evolution, even a challenge calling itself intelligent design would be readily accepted. The whole notion of science is to put forth a theory, and then work to further develop the theory, or abandon it, based on challenges to discrete aspects of that theory. Real science not only accepts those challenges, but encourages them to ensure its accuracy. Evolutionists routinely censor and attack all dissent.
Now why would real scientists be so concerned about intelligent design? Why would prestigious Harvard University commit to invest a million dollars annually in a new program dedicated on the origins of life in relation to evolution? And as Harvard chemistry professor David Liu noted "My expectation, is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
That is an interesting statement from a scientist. In professional circles, this is called confirmatory bias and it is not about science, but about making additional theories fit the predefined outcome that you want them to fit. It is advocacy research and not science. After all, with evolution, there is no way to test or verify history, so it is routine to just create anything you can imagine to fill the void, anything except intelligent design. Taking their cues from cults, when something doesnt fit, just make up something that cant be verified.
The secret of why Darwinists (evolutionists) see intelligent design as a threat is because in its simplest form, it is not only verifiable, but intelligent design is an ideal corollary [FN1] to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Paraphrased that law says:
Any system, on its own, moves from order to disorder, and eventually becomes totally random.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is considered an absolute, solid, verified truth in science. The reason it is considered a law in science is because it is said to apply to all matter in the entire universe and in all situations and circumstances. It has been tested, re-tested, verified, and re-verified and found to be a universal scientific truth.
Why is the Second Law of Thermodynamics Important?
Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In plain terms, it expects people to accept, on blind, unverifiable faith, that out of disorder, and through a bunch of accidents, order is created--, disorder becomes order.
Another way of looking at that would be to think of a deck of cards, carefully shuffled and thrown high in the air. With the expectation that eventually an accident would happen which would cause all 52 cards in the deck, to fall in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. [FN2]
Now we get to the interesting part, the part that absolutely horrifies Darwinists and all evolutionists in particular. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS THE COROLLARY [See FN1] TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
With external inputs of energy, directed in a specialized way, disorder and randomness can be ordered.
Any system, whether open or closed, requires specialized work or specialized energy input to go from disorder to order. This same specialized work or specialized energy input is also required just to maintain order.
Lets look at it this way. If you work at a desk, or construction, or homemaker, or whatever your job is, there are parallels. Evolutionists expect you to believe that if you leave a mess long enough, a set of accidents will eventually occur that will organize all your papers, build a new house, or clean each room in your house, etc. This is plain nonsense and not science.
Evolutionists realize that a COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is both science, is testable, is verifiable, and is true. This is why they are terrified. For evolution to work it requires that a settled scientific LAW be changed to accommodate it. Evolutions FALSE COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics expects one to accept the following paraphrased idea:
With external inputs of energy, random or disordered energy creates order.
In more evolutionary terms, enough accidents, stacked on top of each other, for a long enough period of time, creates order and perfection. Never mind that evolution also says that natural selection destroys all accidents that dont have almost immediate usefulness. It is lunacy to believe that from random occurrence you gain greater and greater order. It then becomes zealous fanaticism when you deny that this is anything more than a secular fundamentalist belief system. In fact, this is in direct defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Under evolution, instead of moving toward disorder, we are moving toward order.
On one hand we hear that life has developed and evolved through accidents that create the variations of the species. And in contradiction to everything coming about because of these accidents, Darwins evolutionists say that natural selection does away with the accidents and chooses the superior accidents. On one hand we have life being created, derived, developed and sustained through accidents, and on the other hand we have life being destroyed and killed off (natural selection) because the accidents arent the right type of accident.
STOP AND THINK about what evolution demands you to believe. Disorder creates order, accidents fix things. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is absurd when you stop to think about it.
Is this Corollary Theory of the Second Law Intelligent Design Testable?
Routinely we hear from the evolution crowd that intelligent design is not testable. Not only is this blatantly false, the Corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (intelligent design) has been proven over, and over, and over again. In fact, it continues to be proven many thousands of times a day.
Every time a pharmaceutical medication is taken to treat a disorder, whether it is physical or mental, it is a test of the theory of intelligent design. The Pharmaceutical companies that research new drug applications to treat disease not only defy natural selection but direct energy and efforts to cure a disorder which results in a medication to treat the disorder.
Every time a doctor performs a necessary surgery, that is successful, it is not only a test of intelligent design, but proof that it is valid. The Physician brings order to disorder and again defies natural selection.
Over and over again, architect, electrical engineer, physicist, chemist, veterinary, and any number of professions routinely cheat natural selection with intelligent design. Over and over again evolutions accidents and natural selections are overcome by intelligent design.
Is it any wonder that the evolution crowd is terrified by intelligent design? Proving intelligent design disproves evolution. When considering intelligent design as a corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as easily tested and verified, its no wonder evolutionists are frightened.
Why so narrowly confined?
When major problems with evolution are raised, such as the INPUTS to the whole evolutionary process, evolutionists shriek, almost in horrified pain that doesnt apply, or thats another area. Take for example the origins of life itself. When raising the proposition that the origins of the chemical INPUTS to life, and the origins of life itself are critical building blocks to verify whether or not evolution is valid, routine shrieks of abiogenesis or some other silly segment of the process is invoked to defend the indefensible. These silly segmentations, which alone may disprove evolution, are routinely segmented out of the idea of evolution. These things are treated almost as if they must be warded off with some magical talisman or incantation against any evil spirits that might challenge the evolutionary cult. Evolutionists hide behind these silly, ridiculous, and utterly absurd notions that you can build valid science on a small piece of a process and leave out all of the pieces that the process depends on.
When parts of the process not only demonstrate that the sacred theory of evolution may be invalid or false, the shrieks of heresy and blasphemy are raised. This isnt science, it is utter madness disguised as science. And certainly I can understand why the issue of the initial origins of life terrify evolutionists. The idea of abiogenesis expects one to accept on blind faith that life just magically appeared from some accidents with rocks, water, and a few base chemicals. Evolution suggests that right after that life was created, it began evolving. This is difficult to believe when you stop and think about it. Life magically appears from rocks, water, and a few chemicals? Im still amazed that all those alchemists in the middle ages couldnt find a way to do something as simple as turning lead into gold. If they had simply applied evolutions teachings, water would have been gold, diamonds, and every other form of precious gem.
Evolutionary theory demands that only physical / material properties can be evaluated. This notion completely ignores the fact that human beings have the ability to reason, to think through things, to make value judgments, to make decisions, to choose right or wrong, to have order and structure or to have disorder and chaos.
This is another point of conflict, if you accept evolutions true premises, only natural selection is valid and all of our morals, values, and social structures arent valid. But they exist and their very existence proves that evolution has more holes. So what do the evolutionists do? No problem, they say that social structures just dont apply. Its not material so we wont even consider it.
Evolution by other names is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, a form of natural eugenics, etc. So, if you remove the social structures, the laws, rules, morals, values, the social structures, all you have are wild animals.
The law of the jungle part of evolution is a glaring defect and a strong demonstration that evolution misses the mark. There is something more to human life than just kill or be killed. So what do the evolutionists do? They simply spout their dogma that doesnt apply, were only looking at the material world! Its easy to understand why they would do this, under the idea of eugenics, Hitler slaughtered millions.
If you stop and think about what evolutionary processes was required to create emotions, social structure, values, order, and the awareness of self, it is easy to understand why evolutionists are terrified of this. By their nature, by what these things ARE, they are not natural evolutionary occurrences. By themselves, they could not have come about by any type of evolutionary theory known today. So having these artificial structures imposed on evolution disproves evolution.
Evolutions true believers treat any challenge to their sacred cow as blasphemy or heresy --, I guess thats a normal reaction to a religious belief.
Evolutionists are terrified. And the debate must be contained. If the debate is not contained, the public school indoctrination and the cult of evolution will collapse. Once people actually stop and think about the blind leaps of faith that evolution requires, it will be seen as the cult it is. Evolution is nothing but wild religious beliefs clothed with the appearance of science.
The golden calf of evolution is on fire. As more and more people actually stop and THINK THROUGH the lunacy that evolution expects you to believe on totally blind faith, evolution will finally be seen for what it truly is, a religion pretending to be science. At that point the fire consuming the golden calf of evolution will turn it to ashes.
[FN1] A corollary is something that is generally a natural consequence of the thing it is related to. So when a corollary is based on something that is already proven, the corollary generally does not require much proof because it is accepted and understood. For example, water freezes and turns to ice at about 32 degrees (F) depending on atmospheric conditions. A corollary would be that water melts as it rises above 32 degrees (F).
[FN2] Before all of the shrieks from the Darwinists, what I have just outlined is called an analogous syllogism, it is a writing tool to help understand complex issues.
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
Whats the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of evolution, blind fanaticism override common sense and reason.
I just can't believe that order "magically" appears from disorder. The whole idea that a mess cleans itself up, and makes itself neat and orderly is completely beyond rational thinking... It shows how absurd the "scientific" arguments from evolutionists really is... Come on folks, stop and THINK about what evolution insists you believe!
put your drinks down first.
Please name a scientist who has asked you to believe that magic creates things.
Common sense says that the sun revolves around the Earth.
This debate is so stupid. Creationists are like people arguing with Neil Armstrong after he got back from the moon that the Earth is actually flat.
... or pour a stiff one...
Evolution: The ultimate in revisionist history.
Oh, dude- this should be fun...
Because contrary to your ignorant and incorrect propaganda, there is a *MASSIVE* amount of evidence supporting evolution, it has passed tens of thousands of validation tests, and passed countless falsification tests.
Deal with it.
The "cute" little arguments offered by supporters of evolution simply DEFY common sense.
Endogenous retroviruses defy common sense? How?
Unfortunately, when it comes to the subject of evolution, blind fanaticism override common sense and reason.
And that's just the creationists, who want to blindly rail against evolution without actually being familiar with the evidence.
I just can't believe that order "magically" appears from disorder.
Neither can I. Magic has nothing to do with it. However, being well-versed in information science, and having studied the topic for over three decades, I'm well aware that information can and does arise naturally from "disorder" when certain natural processes are at work. Deal with it.
The whole idea that a mess cleans itself up, and makes itself neat and orderly is completely beyond rational thinking...
Translation: Because *YOU* can't understand how that can happen, it *must* be impossible...
Learn some science before you attempt to critique it.
Where do you start?
Those with a more emotional objection to the evidence have an emotiobnal objection to overcome.
But they have to be able to see that self-created barrier first. And many simply won't.
Does gold burn?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common DescentVersion 2.85
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.[Last Update: April 15, 2005]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
- Universal Common Descent Defined
- Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
- What Counts as Scientific Evidence
- Other Explanations for the Biology
- How to Cite This Document
- Anatomical vestiges
- Molecular vestiges
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
- The strange past
- Stages of speciation
- Speciation events
- Morphological rates
- Genetic rates
The old deck-of-cards analogy.
If you throw an unboxed, unordered deck of cards into the air, the odds are astronomically against them landing in order on the ground.
The odds are so great, that you might say they are a billion to one, maybe more.
Even if you do it a billion times, common sense says that "it won't happen".
"Therefore evolution didn't happen", is the conclusion.
Never mind that nobody has ever said that a microorganism will turn into a giraffe.
The deck-of-cards analogy fails because it assumes the same starting point each time.
Evolution says that you start from the BETTER of the original, or the mutation. The lesser dies out.
If you could put the cards back the way they were before you threw them, then you could choose to keep the new throw or the old throw, depending on whether it was more ordered or not.
Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.