Darwin's arguments against God

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.¹ Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.² I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’³

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

[Soothesayer]

In the womb we developed from sperm and egg, then into an organism that doesn’t look much different from other fetal animals, and then into what we are now. Many of our bodily structures were destroyed by apoptosis and replaced during development. So a similar thing happened with evolutionary speciation but that doesn’t change the end result now does it? Or are you going to say that the stages of human development are ugly and ungodly?

[Soothesayer]

No, eventually the human organism came about and had the ability to choose sin.

[Soothesayer]

I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt.

[demshateGod]

No but belief in man’s fallen state is prerequisite for salvation and belief in man’s ascent from a rock is exclusive of belief in man’s fallen state. Not to mention, from a completely secular view, it’s ridiculous.

[demshateGod]

Do you think I would call the sates of human development ugly or ungodly? Where do you come up with these “questions.”

[tacticalogic]

The public are hte ones that are being duped by these charlatans, but the tide is turnign as people start examining the truth more carefully- so the scientists’ ‘consensus’ hold little weight when examined against the truth- not really concerned with ‘convincing’ them of hteir mistake- their religion does not hold precendence over the truth

I think you're just whistling past a graveyard, and your tactics are just convincing people that you'll say anything derogatory about scientists in general because your religious beliefs are being threatened.

[tacticalogic]

No, not really. They’re letting the science conform to their belief.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

[Soothesayer]

“Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place?”

Yes there are. Genes are responsible for protein translation and contain regulatory elements, enhancers.

“Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria.”

No one is making the claim that single mutations dramatically change an organism into something wildly different. However, inhibiting a single gene can result in the loss of function in an organ or prevent the development of a body part such as a limb. It can even go in the other direction. Laboratory studies on chicks reveal that single mutations can cause atavistic growth of teeth which were inhibited by another gene. This is a laboratory induced reversal of a loss-of-function mutation. We also have fossils of primitive birds possessing teeth.

Mutations change the amino acid. You may have ‘silent site’ mutations, moderately disabling, or lethal changes in the nucleotide sequence. They can have a variable effect on fitness, from highly advantageous to highly disadvantageous. Most mutations are simply neutral until another mutation causes a significant change in the amino acid sequence. The advantage of any mutation will depend on the affect that any corresponding morphological change has on the organism’s niche. If there is no morphological change, that that will also affect survivability.

One example is the decline in mean viability in Terumi Mukai (et al) Drosophila (fruit fly) experiment. Another is the changes of fitness effects of single mutations isolated in experimental populations of E. Coli and yeast. Also, many mutations are pleiotropic (affect more than one character).

Whether or not the mutations happened gradually or within a short period of time is an empirical question, not a theoretical one.

The end result of “fixing” advantageous genes in a population can sometime be that an existing structure is modified to gain a new function. For example, sesamoid bones often develop in connective tissue in response to embryonic movement. Such bones are the origin of novel skeletal elements, such as the extra “finger” of the giant panda and the patella (kneecap) in the leg of mammals, which is lacking in reptiles (Müller and Wagner 1991)

“Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.”

Some genes are conserved, others are not conserved.

“First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”

We are very fortunate to have the fossils that we have. Geological activity destroyed most of them. The significant data is not the number of intermediate fossils that we have but their location in rock layers. If you find a mammal fossil in pre-Cambrian rock then you have evidence that evolution is false.

There is much more to say. Shall I go on? Any questions?

[Soothesayer]

That was a rhetorical question to demonstrate a point.

You seem to have this revulsion for the idea of generational genetic changes leading to gradual outward changes. This revulsion makes no sense to me. Is it only changes in the genome that bothers you?

[demshateGod]

I’m perplexed by people who deny the Bible then name the name of Christ. I don’t care about genomes, never met any and never read their books. They’re not in the canonized scripture. God said he made a guy named Adam who had a son named Seth who had a son x,y, and z.

[Soothesayer]

I’m still confused about what a “kind” is but hopefully my last post will point some things out.

“It DEFIES natural laws, biological, mathematical, and chemical laws”

Ok, which ones? I don’t see it. Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? That states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is supplied with energy in the form of solar radiation. As a result, Earth is not an isolated system of heat transfer.

[JHBowden]

Guys, The Flinstones was not a documentary.

[Soothesayer]

I’m trying not to deny the Bible because I want to believe in it. If I have to go through this ceaseless battle with young earth/old earth creationism/evolution, then I may very well remain an agnostic until I die. This is a supremely important debate.

Anyway, must we conclude that Adam was the first man? I don’t see that explicitly states in Genesis. It says he created mankind (man and woman), the man was formed from the dust, and placed in Eden. The current theory is that all living persons originated from a mitochondrial Eve through coalescence (last remaining lineage, the children of the others did not reproduce). The only problem is that this would have to be 200,000 years ago and she was not the only woman in Africa.

By the way, knowledge of the human genome is important in medicine. If you value your health and that of others, you should be happy that someone cared enough to decode it. The leader of the human genome project was a professed evangelical christian by the name of Dr. Francis S. Collins. He argued that evolution and the Bible were compatible and that made me believe in Christianity for a while. Now I don’t know what to believe.

[demshateGod]

I’m not a scientist, as I’ve said, and not in medicine. I don’t see how the belief in evolution improves medical research and in fact, I think it’s a distraction.

Anyway. God’s whole reason for creating man, is for fellowship. We broke that fellowship when we willfully sinned. We chose death and separation from God. But God commended his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, he sent His son to die for us.

Death and suffering is a result of sin. That’s why Christianity is incompatible with evolution. Evolution teaches that death and suffering went on for eons before humans sinned, that God’s creation was imperfect and flawed. It dismisses Biblical salvation and the need for God to come down and dwell among us and take our sin upon Himself.

The fact that we’re sinners should be clear. The fact that sin is the cause of all this pain should be clear. The good news is God is willing to reconcile us to Himself. We just have to accept that reconciliation. I pray you’ll do that.

[Fichori]

“The Bible doesn’t even explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the first and the only. It just says:”

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1st Corinthians 15:45

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1st Timothy 2:13

Lets be precise now...

[Soothesayer]

It looks like God says “you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” (Genesis 3:3)

Where does it say that all of creation now experiences physical death after they touched it? It says that creation was “good” in the beginning but I don’t see anything regarding death prior to this.

Others have explained to me that there could not be any animal death because that would not be “good”. Where is this idea coming from? If this is true, why weren’t the Jews ordered to be vegetarians?

[Soothesayer]

**** forgot about that.

Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.

[Soothesayer]

Unless...Adam wasn’t a Cro Magnon.

[demshateGod]

I can think of one. Romans 8. The whole chapter is great evidence of the power sin has over the creation, as well as the futility of works for salvation but I’ll just give you what you’re specifically looking for.

Rom 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

And incase you might wonder if “creation” is refering to humans. Verse 23......

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

And here’s another. All of Isaiah 11
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=11&v=1&t=KJV

Honestly I think this argument is grasping at straws.

[Soothesayer]

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

That much is true about the period we are living in but that doesn’t seem to be anything specific about death before the fall or is it? Also, Isaiah is referring to the world that is to come, right?