Evolution Needs to Evolve

American Specator ^ | 09/16/2011 | By Hal G.P. Colebatch

[SeekAndFind]

Professor of Atheism Richard Dawkins grows increasingly shrill. His outbursts include the following, not very recent, but typical:

__________________________________

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

__________________________________

You can, of course, make any point you like providing you don't care about first premises. One thing which evidently fails to enter Professor Dawkins' mental universe is the idea -- accepted by many scientists -- that the theory of evolution is broadly correct, but as an explanation of life and the human condition it is incomplete.

We know life exists. We also know it had to be created by some process. Biology tells us that that process was evolution. It tells us nothing about what set that process in notion, created the Earth we stand on, or created the universe from some unimaginable pre-Creation state without space or time. The idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing seems somehow unsatisfactory.

Whether the Heaven and the Earth, and human life, was created over 13.2 billion years following the Big Bang, or over six days as a literal reading of Genesis is interpreted as saying, actually does not matter.

Of course I accept evolution. I find the Biblical literalists who claim the Earth was created in six days, and who believe that we are all descended from a couple called Adam and Eve Fell who because they were tempted by a walking, talking snake, tiresome. I am more-or-less aware of the historical reasons why these fundamentalist beliefs took root and persist in some communities.

But this does not mean that evolution explains everything, or that it ought to explain everything.

[ml/nj]

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.

Hineini!

Science degrees, big boards scores, and all.

ML/NJ

[FreedomProtector]

absolutely intellectually void quote from article:

Whether the Heaven and the Earth, and human life, was created over 13.2 billion years following the Big Bang, or over six days as a literal reading of Genesis is interpreted as saying, actually does not matter.

Actually, it matters a whole lot, it effects how one views nearly everything else....

[Dick Tater]

It's insane to believe we are all descended from a couple called Adam and Eve Fell who because they were tempted by a walking, talking snake

but believing we're all talking monkeys descended from swamp thing isnt? *shrug* Pick your insanity but make mine God.

[mc5cents]

A rather good essay on the subject by Ann Coulter here.

From the article:

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

[Maelstorm]

The problem I have with rigid natural selectionists (something that is totally disproven btw) is their total disconnect from reality. They as it tends to be with the left on nearly every issue want to act as though if you don’t believe in their exact narrow interpretation of evolution that you must be ignorant stupid or just plain dumb. I’m surprised they haven’t found a way to work in the “hate” angle somewhere because you know hate is all that motivates religious people because you know how very civil people were before organized religions like Christianity.

What I don’t understand is why they are so very religious and hateful about an issue that really has no effect on whether the sun rises or sets. People believe all kinds of totally fictional subjective and unproven things. Their problem is they want to use evolution as a spear to slay God and that is not and should never be the aim of science.
The great scientists that founded nearly every branch of hard science were creationists and to more or lesser degree religious. Newton certainly was, Galileo, Copernicus a priest was, Kepler was a very religious man, who even though he was persecuted by the church found a way to credit God for each and every discovery he would make.

There is an unreality to rabid evolutionists just as there is with all those who have tunnel vision. It is bad enough in people who are uneducated but it is a true travesty in those who are educated. The first acknowledgement of science should be of the limits of our knowledge not the narrow constrainment of it. Those who worry about children and whether they are taught about creation don’t seem concerned at all that the very obvious differences between man and apes are taught the simplest being the count of our chromosomes. Apes have 48 and humans have 46. Strange given that most undomesticate species have more not less but lets not worry about that nor the fact that gene expression patterns of human beings is vastly different than any so called ape cousins.

Rigid Evolutionists expect us to ignore our eyes. They expect us to ignore that given their measurements mice, men, apes are nearly the same give or take a small percentage. This of course is not true but they still refuse to fully acknowledge the role of epigenetics for some of the same reasons that the church tried to suppress knowledge it did not like. The whole of academia is built to reinforce accepted notions and has a decidely liberal bent so when they say most scientists believe such and such or an even better one most pre-eminement scientists agree one has to ask how could they not?

There is one simple fact that should be accepted by any person who has any degree of intellectual honesty and that is that there are more questions than answers and that the role of science is not to disprove religion or carry a liberal or conservative political torch but instead to tell us a bit more about the world around us. The grande ironey is that evolutionists like Dawkins have far more in common with those who persecuted Kepler and Galileo than not and both of those great men died loving God having appreciated living a life discovering the great myteries he laid before them.

[mc5cents]

Here is another Coulter piece that is very good too. Here.

[Vide]

"One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species."

Let's have a little context with that:

Scientists have described over 1.7 million of the world's species of animals, plants and algae, as of 2010.

From Wikipedia:

Total number of species (estimated): 7–100 million (identified and unidentified), including:

• 5–10 million bacteria;^[21]
• 1.5 million fungi;^[22]
• ~1 million mites^[23]
• 10–30 million insects;^[24]

Number of identified eukaryote species: 1.6 million, including:^[25]

• 3,067 brown algae
• 321,212 plants, including:
  • 10,134 red & green algae
  • 16,236 mosses,
  • 12,000 ferns & horsetails,
  • 1,021 gymnosperms,
  • 281,821 angiosperms;
• 74,000-120,000 fungi;^[22]
• 17,000 lichens;
• 1,367,555 animals, including:
  • 1,305,250 invertebrates
    • 2,175 corals
    • 85,000 mollusks
    • 102,248 arachnids
    • 47,000 crustaceans
    • 1,000,000 insects
    • 68,827 other invertebrates;
  • 62,305 vertebrates
    • 31,300 fish,
    • 6,433 amphibians,
    • 9,084 reptiles,
    • 9,998 birds,
    • 5,490 mammals;

So, let's be conservative and say just 100k vertebrate and hard invertebrate species at a time, with an average species life of (say) 5m years (again conservative - what did horses and humans look like 5m years ago?). A fossil record of (say) 500m years gives us 500m/5m x 100k = at least 10 million fossil species that we might expect to discover. Even using that (very) low-ball number, we've only uncovered 2.5% of the record so far.

The tired old "Zeno's Paradox" argument ("but what about the missing link between Mesohippus and Miohippus?") is ignorant, stupid or insane.

[Texas Songwriter]

The idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing seems somehow unsatisfactory

I know of no Christian Cosmology which makes this absurd statement. First Principles state the following: "Everything which comes to be has a cause." The capricious statement that the universe (notwithstanding the capitalization of the word Universe, which should not go unnoticed) created itself ex nihlo has never been advocated from Christian cosmology. It has, however been misstated time and again by seemingly illinformed atheists with an agenda. They create this pretext, taken out of context for their text. It is the underpinning cosmology of atheists and Hindu.

The simple syllogism is as follows:

Everything which comes to be has a cause

The universe exists

Therefore the universe had a cause.

The 20th century cause of Cosmology has largely been one attempt after the other to do away with a beginning of the Universe. Einstein hated the idea of a beginning. The great astronomer and Christian Arthur Eddington said he found to idea of a beginning to be so absurd that he would be shocked if anyone else believed it, except himself. Fred Hoyle, father of the idea of a steady state, finally capitulated and accepted the idea of a beginning. As did, Penzias, Wilson, Hubble, Smute, Goddard, and hundreds of other men who examined, without presuppositions against facts, concluded the same thing.

Richard Dawkins was so convicted to his worldview that upon William Lane Craig going to Cambridge, England this summer to debate Dawkins, Dawkins, in a display of cowardice, so self-evident, no casual observer could deny the feckless Dawkins, like the mental pigmey that he is, ran for the tall weeds to avoid Dr.Craig. They keep pumping out these articles, keep calling others names who disagree with them, and keep avoiding intellectual confrontation with the likes of Dr.Craig, that their motives are revealed in their process....call a name...then run like hell to avoid a logical, reasonable, rational examination of the facts before them....not what they believe (not their faith), just the facts. They claim to be the champion of knowledge, yet their own worldview will not allow for reason and logic via evolutionary model. If it did, they would put it out there. But alas, theirs is an empy vessel devoid of any factual prescription to put the argument to rest. Come forth Mr. Dawkins and let us reason together.

[YHAOS]

"The capricious statement that the universe (notwithstanding the capitalization of the word Universe, which should not go unnoticed) created itself ex nihlo has never been advocated from Christian cosmology. It has, however been misstated time and again by seemingly illinformed atheists with an agenda."

Not hardly illinformed but, as the structure of your statement indicates, just Atheists with an agenda.

[Texas Songwriter]

Sorry!~-—I should have diagrammed the sentences for the grammar nazis. I’ll keep that in mind....next time I make a comment. But not this time.

[YHAOS]

"should have diagrammed the sentences for the grammar nazis."

I offered support . . . not a correction.

Read #10 again.

No, wait . . . Never mind. Not worth the trouble.

[aruanan]

Everything which comes to be has a cause

The universe exists

Therefore the universe had a cause.

However, if the universe has not come to be but has always existed, then it either has no cause or has an eternally ongoing cause.

Still, even though within a contingent universe one could posit that one thing cannot happen unless caused by another, it doesn't necessarily follow that the universe, as a whole, that is, existence itself, is the product of such contingency.

[Texas Songwriter]

However, if the universe has not come to be but has always existed, then it either has no cause or has an eternally ongoing cause.I will need to comment on the first portion of your sentence..."if the universe has not come to be..." then one must conclude it has always existed." If it has always been, and if entropy is true, then the universe has has 'plenty of time' for the atomic and subatomic particles to be infinitly dispersed into a cosmic ocean of nothingness, approaching absolute zero. But....here we are discussing this subject.

Yes, it is logically possible for the universe to have always existed, but the problem with your assertion is that it is practically and actually factually not the case. Einstein, asserted the theory of the General Theory of Relativity and Eddington and Hubble proved that this theory was, in fact, the case that the universe had a beginning. Wilson and Penzias found the cosmic background radiation of the initial event of creation (they received the Nobel Prize in science for their discovery). George Smoot, NASA project manager for the COBE (cosmic background explorer) brought photographs which revealed the ripples of heat energy from the echo of the initial event of creation. This was further solidified by the findings of WMAP revealing the heat 'echo' of creation. Smoot, atheist extraordiaire, said, "For those who believe in a Creator it is like looking at the fingerprints of God". All of these scientist, atheist (except Eddington) were out to prove there was no moment of creation. Hawkin, trying to disprove a beginning, resorted to 'imaginary numbers' for his theory of a beginning...but admitted, in the end, they were imaginary...and in fact there was a beginning (from "A Brief History of Time".

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

[aruanan]

If it has always been, and if entropy is true, then the universe has has 'plenty of time' for the atomic and subatomic particles to be infinitly [sic] dispersed into a cosmic ocean of nothingness, approaching absolute zero. But....here we are discussing this subject.

That's assuming a fixed amount of matter and energy to start with and a finite space within which to exist. Remember also that you're assuming that "a cosmic ocean of nothingness" has some sort of attributes, but nothing is nothing.

The so-called heat signature of the big bang is a characterization of a phenomenon that doesn't necessitate the existence of a big bang, rather, it was the idea of a big bang, arrived at by a premature interpretation of red shift as being evidence of recessional velocity, that gave rise to this interpretation of the cosmic background radiation. That interpretation is by no means certain or even likely now that we know that at least a large portion of that red shift is intrinsic to certain types of matter and an indication of their age rather than their physical velocity through space.

[Texas Songwriter]

That's assuming a fixed amount of matter and energy to start with and a finite space withing which to exist. Remember also that you're assuming that "a cosmic ocean of nothingness" has some sort of attributes, but nothing is nothing.

Is your inference that matter and energy are continually being created? I am a little at a loss to understand your point.

Regarding the heat signature, I will simply quote Robert Jastrow, "No explaination other than the Big Bang has been gound for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomaas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for thelight and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory (Hoyle) have tried desperately to find an alternativce explaination but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competetors".

Hawking said, of Smoot's projects findings, it is the "The Holy Grail of Cosmology".

If you can, through physics, regress the orignation of the universe, beyond the moment of creation, please explain.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear Texas Songwriter!

Come forth Mr. Dawkins and let us reason together.

Indeed.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[aruanan]

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

This is begging the question and involves itself in a contradiction. It is saying, "Something cannot exist without a cause; that cause is God, who exists without a cause."

More on the background radiation thing later. I must have some coffee first.

[Texas Songwriter]

This is begging the question and involves itself in a contradiction. It is saying, "Something cannot exist without a cause; that cause is God, who exists without a cause."

It does not beg the question and is not circular reasoning. Many others have postulated other causes. Even you postulated that energy and matter are being created at the same rate as it is destroyed in your previous post. Others have put forth other explainations as a cause. Of course these postulations have been reasoned to be groundless, as you are apparently wrestling with when you affirm "....who exists without a cause." Physics cannot deal with anything prior to that moment of creation (singularity). We must move into realm of metaphysics (what Aristotle referenced as reality above or beyond physics). So, far from begging the question it, by induction, allows one to use reason and logic to make a rational conclusion...this is what Leibnez did and put the question well and properly, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

Prior to singularity nothing existed...not time, not space, not matter, not energy. No thing. Prior to that moment there was no physical space in which matter to exist, and no time for events to take place. This is why the Leibnezian question is so pertinent to this discussion. What brought all of this universe into existence. It would have had to be timeless and eternal, as well it would have had to be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence. It would have had to be personal to had made a decision to bring the universe into existence. Further it would have to be nonspatial (not extended into space, as space did not exist). It would have had to be immaterial as matter did not exist. It would have had to be self-existent. It would have had to be supremely intelligent to have designed the universe. These conclusions are derived from reasoned induction of the findings of scientific studies byEinstein, Hubble, Eddington, Wilson, Penzias, Smoot, NASA (through COBE and WMAP {go to NASA's web site and take a look}). It is noteworthy that these are the same attributes theologans have described in the Jewish/Christian God.

It would be noteworth to quote Jastrow again when he said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the moutains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peaks; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."