Caterpillar Controversy Discloses Deep Evolutionary Disagreement

ICR News ^ | November 5, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[aruanan]

Then on this basis we can say that Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead (a large number of observers) in reality (a written record was kept) meets the ultimate test (here even Jesus’ enemies acknowledged the FACT of Lazarus resurrection) of what's true.

But as so often is the case when the posters have no understanding of the subject they find easier to make GGG the object of their personal comments and ridicule. All the while explaining to us the depth of their Christian belief lest we not notice.

The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because

1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar.

And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.

The answer to the above is, of course,

1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured...."seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist"...
1. something like that cannot happen, 2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and 3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar.
The answer to the above is, of course, 1. that the most they can say is that, ...2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

I just want to make sure I understand: you're talking about the creationists who say that we can't know anything about evolution because no one was there to see it, right?

[08bil98z24]

Those of us that understand and use science

That is very questionable.

[webstersII]

“The conflation of the two shows how little so many of you know about science.”

I was only referring to the actual TESTING part of the Theory of Gravity.

Since the TOE can’t even be tested and observed under controlled conditions, it doesn’t even qualify as a Theory. It’s an idea — just like Intelligent Design is an idea.

[Ira_Louvin]

You know that you are using that cover out of context. This has been pointed out to you several times.

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.

When did God give you a free pass on Exodus 20:16?

[Ira_Louvin]

There you go again spreading the misconceptions. This is the third time you have tried this in this thread alone. So I will correct you yet again. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421

Repeating the same fallacy over and over will not make it a fact.

[ColdWater]

Yet another evo who is too ashamed to identify his unintelligent god that is not a who, but who is a he. You guys crack me up to no end...LOL!

You should really be more respectful of God. I don't really care whether you capitalize God or not. But it does show where your soul resides when you don't. Actually, the capitalization of God is a fairly recent invention by man but since most religious people capitalize it puts you out of the mainstream and in the category of a cultist.

[ColdWater]

How do you know that they don’t?

I know and I have posted examples and links for the not quite as lazy as count-your-change types.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear freedumb2003!

[freedumb2003]

>>Since the TOE can’t even be tested and observed under controlled conditions, it doesn’t even qualify as a Theory. It’s an idea — just like Intelligent Design is an idea.<<

Again, you are using a layperson’s definition of a “theory.” Learn a little and then try again. As far as testing and the like, you are 100% wrong. Unless you want to say that Geology is just an idea.

ID meets zero criteria for a Scientific Theory. TToE meets all.

[ColdWater]

Ok, explain the attributes of your unintelligent god.

It is totally anti-God to try to describe God in human terms.

[webstersII]

Show me the test that will demonstrate one species evolving into another. There isn’t one. Adaptation can be shown but not speciation.

Or how about this one: based on genetic manipulation, show the minimum amount of change required for one fossil to be a mutation of another. It can’t be done; maybe sometime in the future but certainly now now. That’s why the whole thing is not even a theory, it’s just a convenient idea for scientists who favor naturalism as a worldview.

You can continue your Al Gore-like appeal to authority, but it’s impossible to insist that it can be known how events took place based on the evidence that’s available in the fossil record.

[ColdWater]

So far, evolutionary theory has NOT been falsified.

[freedumb2003]

How about this?

I am not responsible for your ignorance. If you can’t Google to answer your questions, then I am not going to teach you what people spend years learning.

In the meantime, your questions show your ignorance and you should quit featuring it.

[Mudtiger]

“So far, evolutionary theory has NOT been falsified.”

True enough, I guess. Neither has it been demonstrated that mutation and natural selection can change a cow into a whale (or whatever it is that is supposed to have turned into a whale).

[ColdWater]

(or whatever it is that is supposed to have turned into a whale).

That is not Jonah 1:17

[Mudtiger]

“That is not Jonah 1:17 “

???

Maybe I didn’t read upthread far enough. Anyway, was it an evolved cow that swallowed Jonah?:)

[ColdWater]

You just reminded me about that silly story I was taught about Jonah in the belly of the whale.

[Mudtiger]

“You just reminded me about that silly story I was taught about Jonah in the belly of the whale.”

Silly as the virgin birth and resurrection...right?

[ColdWater]

Silly as the virgin birth and resurrection...right?

Thomas Jefferson thought so.