Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?
CEH ^ | April 7, 2009

Posted on 04/08/2009 7:27:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?

April 7, 2009 — A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are.  This layman’s view, though simplistic, expects that a theory should also predict new phenomena before they are observed.  In many science reports on evolution, however, one finds evolutionary theory tacked on as an explanation after the fact, when the theory had virtually nothing to do with the research or the conclusions (for examples a year ago, see 04/04/2008).  The evolutionary interpretation also begs the question that it is the only explanation adequate to explain the phenomena under observation.  Other research projects that are motivated by evolutionary theory, and claim success of the theory, leave sizable loopholes for critics.

  1. Dog lab:  The dog has been man’s best friend for years, but is it because of evolution?  MSNBC News surprised readers with the title “Dogs (not chimps) most like humans.” 

    Lest one conclude that we evolved from dogs, or they from us, the article launched into a discussion of dog-human co-evolution.  “Now, perhaps for the first time, students of animal behavior, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, philosophy and veterinary medicine will unite to provide deeper insights into the evolution of dogs and the evolution of humans,” said Marc Hauser of Harvard.  If you thought you were training your dog with intelligent design, maybe Darwin was at work on both of you.

  2. Spliceosome marvels:  The spliceosome, one of the most sophisticated molecular machines of all, was unveiled in unprecedented detail recently by scientists at Brandeis University and Cambridge.  This machine clips RNA transcripts and reassembles them before they get translated into proteins.  It’s an exquisite process that must be performed thousands of times without error, lest serious disorders develop.  Science Daily reported on the detailed look at this machine, then quoted a researcher who said this about it: “In human cells one gene can be made into a variety of proteins, so if the process just goes slightly wrong, the genetic alteration can lead to incredible disaster; yet on the other hand, this incredible complexity has led to our amazing evolutionary progress,” said Pomeranz Krummel [Brandeis U]. 

    “....The fundamental difference between us and the earthworm is that our cells have evolved to utilize this process of RNA splicing to generate a whole other dimension to the transmission of genetic information.”

  3. Insect flight:  Last month, Science Daily told about a researcher at U of Arkansas who searched for the evolution of insect flight.  He and his coworkers dropped wingless bristletails, thought to be ancestors of winged insects, from treetops and watched them control their descent with their tails.  “The existence of aerial control ability in a wingless insect and its habitat in trees is consistent with the hypothesis of a terrestrial origin for winged flight in insects,” he said – but he did not connect the tail structure with the wings and muscles of flying insects.  Nor did he consider the possibility that bristletails are secondarily flightless.

  4. Sponge ancestor not:  You can breathe a sigh of relief.  The sponge is not your ancestor.  Science Daily said that an international team has put sponges on a separate evolutionary branch all their own: “scientists report that all sponges descended from a unique sponge ancestor, who in turn was not the ancestor of all other animals.”  To tell this story, they had to stretch credibility: “Since the comb jellies already have nerve and muscle cells, this would suggest that these features developed several times independently in animal history, or that they were lost in sponges and placozoans.”  The article says that molecular and morphological studies contradict each other’s evolutionary inferences and the work remains “controversial.”
  5. Game theory:  Explaining the evolution of cooperation by game theory is still a hot topic.  PhysOrg claimed that “Cooperative behavior meshes with evolutionary theory” based on work by two MIT students.  To make this work, it seems the evolutionists need to ascribe free will to the members of a population – even to yeast cells:

    The same rules apply to the cheating and cooperating yeast: Like the driver who grudgingly gets out and shovels so that both she and her fellow motorist – snug inside his car – may continue on their journeys, the yeast who cooperate do so because there is a slight benefit for themselves.  However, when most of the yeast are cooperating, it becomes advantageous for some individuals to cheat, and vice versa, which allows co-existence between cheaters and cooperators to arise.

What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself?  Re-read the principles in the 04/04/2008 commentary.  The Darwinian storytellers have still not repented.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; fuzzycreationistmath; humor; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2009 7:27:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 04/08/2009 7:28:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For every one person you bring to Christ you drive away at least 5.


3 posted on 04/08/2009 7:32:56 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
That's not bad! Every 5th person converted to Christ. Thanks for the encouragement :o)
4 posted on 04/08/2009 7:34:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are.

That's going to put the ID/creation scientist in the position of having to discern God's motives.

5 posted on 04/08/2009 7:34:35 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So you are happy that you drive people away from Christ. That isn’t something I would expect a Christian to say - how do you justify it?


6 posted on 04/08/2009 7:38:01 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

We have the advantage of having God’s Word to inform us of the motives He has chosen to reveal. Not only that, he tells us what and when he created, which is why creation origins science is so vastly superior to Evos blindly grasping for random straws in the dark.


7 posted on 04/08/2009 7:39:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Jesus Christ says that His message is offensive to the lost. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life.


8 posted on 04/08/2009 7:40:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

and you come up with this ratio based on science or professional gut feel based on your wrong assumptions.


9 posted on 04/08/2009 7:43:18 PM PDT by BillT (New Executive Order to abolish the WS Constitution to be signed to save the US Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
We have the advantage of having God’s Word to inform us of the motives He has chosen to reveal. Not only that, he tells us what and when he created, which is why creation origins science is so vastly superior to Evos blindly grasping for random straws in the dark.

That's going to submit the Bible as theory. Are you sure you want to do that?

10 posted on 04/08/2009 7:44:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BillT

By talking to people - that is how I came up with it.


11 posted on 04/08/2009 7:45:29 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Judging from your posts and your treatment of others - perhaps you should reread the message of Jesus Christ?


12 posted on 04/08/2009 7:46:58 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

God does not formulate theories. He knows the beginning from the end. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Men are forced to formulate theories.


13 posted on 04/08/2009 7:52:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

I have. That’s how I know the message of Jesus Christ is offensive to the lost.


14 posted on 04/08/2009 7:53:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I don’t think so - I know some who have found God and they are much nicer and respectful to those with whom they disagree. The operate on the theory that by being a good example they may gain converts.

It appears to work.


15 posted on 04/08/2009 7:58:41 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

How many have you won to Christ, DevNet?


16 posted on 04/08/2009 8:00:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself?

Well, if the scientist is a tropical arthropod entomologist, I want him tossing bugs out of trees. I don't think he'd be very useful in cancer research or greengineering.

17 posted on 04/08/2009 8:01:12 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Confronting people with their disbelief and insisting they repent was exactly what the rest of the Bible says. Insisting that you are a Christian but calling God’s Word to His people a lie isn’t what Jesus was looking for. When Jesus preached in the synagogue, he preached Genesis, The Flood, Sodom’s destruction, ect. I can’t find in the Scripture where He said all that stuff in the Bible was a myth and we actually came from apes or pond scum or whatever. Your theory would have Jesus preaching lies in church. If Jesus lied, He wasn’t perfect and couldn’t be my substitute for sin on the cross. All Christianity crumbles like a house of cards. You can choose man or choose God, you cannot serve to masters.


18 posted on 04/08/2009 8:02:55 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Jesus Christ says that His message is offensive to the lost.

It does not follow that anything offensive is the message of Jesus Christ.

19 posted on 04/08/2009 8:04:28 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
For every one person you bring to Christ you drive away at least 5.

That's not bad! Every 5th person converted to Christ. Thanks for the encouragement :o)

So, not only do you not understand evolution, you don't understand math either.

20 posted on 04/08/2009 8:07:05 PM PDT by Paradox (When the left have no one to villainize, they'll turn on each other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

==Well, if the scientist is a tropical arthropod entomologist, I want him tossing bugs out of trees.

That’s one of the beauties of creation science. They don’t need to dismember and throw bugs out of trees to validate the design of God’s creation.


21 posted on 04/08/2009 8:08:07 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The Evolutionists and the Creationists are saying the same things, while arguing over the details.

Problem is, they are both wrong.


22 posted on 04/08/2009 8:09:56 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Men are forced to formulate theories.

If the theory has to explain why, and the Bible is your explanation then it's part of the theory.

23 posted on 04/08/2009 8:12:10 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You answer first.


24 posted on 04/08/2009 8:19:05 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Then what is the correct answer?


25 posted on 04/08/2009 8:20:58 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

==It does not follow that anything offensive is the message of Jesus Christ.

It depends on what you mean by “anything.” The Bible is clear that the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever. So offensive, in fact, many a Christian (starting with the example of Jesus Christ Himself) have been crucified, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, etc. It’s part of the territory.


26 posted on 04/08/2009 8:22:53 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Theories are fallible. God’s Word is infallible. Therefore, God’s Word is not a theory.


27 posted on 04/08/2009 8:28:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Therefore, God’s Word is not a theory.

Though human's interpretation of that Word is notoriously so.
28 posted on 04/08/2009 8:29:52 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Theories are fallible. God’s Word is infallible. Therefore, God’s Word is not a theory.

Do you want to engage this as science or not? If you're going to demand that theories have to explain why, then your explanations should have to go on the table and be subject to the same criticism as everyone elses.

29 posted on 04/08/2009 8:32:22 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Bible is not a theory. But scientists can use information from the Bible to formulate theories with respect to physical evidence for a biblical cosmology, a young earth, the flood, the created kinds, etc. But the Bible itself is not a theory.


30 posted on 04/08/2009 8:38:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Who knew? That Ole Time Evolution draws the heathen to Christ! No wonder Darwin has been sainted!


31 posted on 04/08/2009 8:41:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I knew the liberal denominations were trampling each other to see who can make the best apology to the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism, but I didn’t know they went and sainted him!


32 posted on 04/08/2009 8:46:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


33 posted on 04/08/2009 8:52:16 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Your research skills are lacking.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2176781/posts?page=32#32


34 posted on 04/08/2009 8:53:57 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; count-your-change

Oh, I see, he was sainted by eugenicist scientists. Makes sense.


35 posted on 04/08/2009 9:04:25 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Feb 01, 2009 — The celebrations in honor of Charles Robert Darwin for his 200th birthday (Feb. 12) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his influential book On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection (Nov. 29th) are well underway.

Hey, at least we can ditch the ridiculous "common era" crap and go back to AD now. After Darwin.

36 posted on 04/08/2009 9:07:03 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That's going to submit the Bible as theory. Are you sure you want to do that?

The veracity of the Bible should be tested by reason. Just as the veracity of the scientific method should be reason.

Those who reject using "mere reason" or using "philosophy" to figure our where they place their trust, should reject science. As without using reason, there can be no justification for trusting it. After all the lower animals don't.

People who dillegently study the scientific method, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as a good way to understand the particulars of nature--within limits of what we can test.

People who dillegently study the Christian Bible, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as the inspired word of God.

Both pursuits are based on both faith and reason.

Perhaps they can occasionaly give each other support, but neither disipine should be limited to the structure of the other.

37 posted on 04/08/2009 9:20:43 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’d say from the adoration given Darwin on his b-day Sainting may be too mild a word, but I am trying to be the new and improved Voice...never mind. i don’t want to drive anyone away by jabbing Chuck in the eye.


38 posted on 04/08/2009 9:29:24 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Eugenicist scientist, a.k.a., devotees of Molech.


39 posted on 04/08/2009 9:35:05 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Look here (and "places" similar) for a possible source of formation of cancerous growths? Just an idea...doubt it's original.

40 posted on 04/08/2009 10:00:38 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; GodGunsGuts; metmom
For every one person you bring to Christ you drive away at least 5.

Source?

Evidence?

Proof?

41 posted on 04/08/2009 10:01:12 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

I won’t be holding my breath.


42 posted on 04/08/2009 10:03:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

The source would be the person who made the comment - that would be me.

The evidence is my talking to many people on the subject and related maters.

Proof - I could give you their contact information but I am afraid they would be harassed.


43 posted on 04/08/2009 10:08:22 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; GodGunsGuts
So you are happy that you drive people away from Christ

Did he drive you away from Christianity, or do you just like to complain?

44 posted on 04/09/2009 12:33:03 AM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Bible is not a theory. But scientists can use information from the Bible to formulate theories with respect to physical evidence for a biblical cosmology, a young earth, the flood, the created kinds, etc. But the Bible itself is not a theory.

That will only give them information with respect to what happened, an perhaps an order of events, simply looking at the physical evidence doesn't tell you "why".

God is infallible, but men are not.

God doesn't write articles for creationist web sites, men do.

There is nothing in the Bible that says theories have to explain why, nor is that requirement enforced by science. It is a personal opinion submitted by the author of this article, and it appears to not have been well considered.

45 posted on 04/09/2009 3:48:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

How’s life over at DC??


46 posted on 04/09/2009 4:40:48 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DevNet; tpanther; GodGunsGuts
The source would be the person who made the comment - that would be me

Strike one.

The evidence is my talking to many people on the subject and related maters.

Strike two.

Proof - I could give you their contact information but I am afraid they would be harassed.

ROTFLMBO!!!!! Not unlike the kind and civil folks over at DC that we've heard about from their own who have left? Strike three.

Evidence like that is not good enough for frevos when presented to them as evidence of something, so the very things they say to us about that style of *evidence*.... backatcha.

47 posted on 04/09/2009 5:58:27 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; DevNet

Of course, that nonsense about *driving people away from Christ* is just that nonsense.

Several huge flaws exist in his statement.

One is that he is talking to people who have rejected Christianity and aren’t Christians and such people are always looking for excuses to reject Christianity. Such people have a bone to pick with God and are willing to blame ANYTHING or ANYONE for their reason to reject God.

Another thing is, it’s all just his say so. If he’s depending on memory, that’s known to be unreliable in anyone. I would not consider that he’s actually kept tally, unless he’s a compulsive God hater, looking to keep score.

The other thing is, the sample from which he’s taking his statements. I seriously doubt that he’s ever interviewed, or even encountered, anyone yu run into in your daily life. Unless those people you meet know you as GGG and have told him face to face that they know you and that your stand on creation is what has driven them from Christ, then he offers nothing but, well, unsubstantiated drivel.

If, in fact, he’s conversed with someone who is aware of you via the internet, then the only population left who knows who you are, knows you as GGG. That would be the people on this forum. The only ones that would qualify as having been *driven from Christ* would no doubt be the evos, as the creationists would not have accused you of *driving them away from Christ*. Now there’s a real unbiased sample for you. His sample is necessarily badly skewed.

So this whole exercise on DN’s in providing corroborating evidence to an unsubstantiated comment is, as my teenaged daughter likes to put it..... EPIC FAIL.


48 posted on 04/09/2009 6:43:24 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That's going to put the ID/creation scientist in the position of having to discern God's motives.

Why should the frevos object to that? They do it all the time.

49 posted on 04/09/2009 6:44:21 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Ever notice that the only time Scripture has any credibility to some is when they use it as a weapon to bludgeon believers with?

They can’t use Scripture when it conflicts with their previously held beliefs, but they sure are quick on the draw when trying to manipulate and insult believers.

Then, all of a sudden, it’s got more credibility, as if it’s the words of God Himself.

Imagine that.....


50 posted on 04/09/2009 6:47:38 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson