Bottom-Up Science (miracles pop up everywhere in evolution fairytale)

ACTS & FACTS ^ | November 2009 | David F. Coppedge

[GodGunsGuts]

Evolutionary philosophy is a bottom-up storytelling project: particles, planets, people. Naturalists (those who say nature is all there is) believe they can invent explanations that are free of miracles, but in practice, miracles pop up everywhere in their stories. This was satirized by Sidney Harris years ago in a cartoon that showed a grad student filling a blackboard with equations. His adviser called attention to one step that needed some elaboration: It said, "Then a miracle happens." Examples of miracles in evolutionary philosophy include the sudden appearance of the universe without cause or explanation, the origin of life, the origin of sex, the origin of animal and plant body plans, and the origin of human consciousness.

An egregious example of appeal to miracle appeared recently in Nature ...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GourmetDan]

Yep, TDFKAS is nothing more than philosophical naturalism compelled by the fallacy of composition.

[HerrBlucher]

At face value, without considering anything else, Naturalism has an enormous hurdle to leap as it cannot allow even one instance of supernatural intervention (i.e. miracles) ever, for all of time, or the whole theory falls apart. Supernaturalism, on the other hand, can allow for Nature to be the dominant force in this world 99.999% of the time and still remain valid.

In other words, Naturalism requires a LOT more faith than Supernaturalism.

[Julia H.]

When did evolution and naturalism become synonyms?

[USALiberty]

I have posted about this before. We have to start standing up and making sure NO tax dollars are used to fund science designed to refute the beliefs of the Christian majority. It is a waste of time and money.

There is really ONLY one logical explanation for the origin of complex, functionally specified, digitized genetic information. GOD CREATED IT — in SIX DAYS when He created the universe. Any other explanation can be torn apart.

It really irks me to know that a lot of tax dollars are wasted in places like government universities on efforts to explain “the origins of life” and the nature of the universe. It’s all there in Genesis — NO CHARGE! Just read what God has to say. God does not lie. So, why waste resources to “prove” that God’s Holy Word is false? It’s offensive that anyone would even try — let alone do that with MY money.

It is not just evolution we need to take out of schools. We need to address the whole scientific culture that says that we must “seek answers” to questions that we already KNOW the answer to. The only possible motive for that is the promotion of a deeply atheistic agenda.

[GodGunsGuts]

They have been synonyms for millennia, Darwinism being the most recent example.

[GourmetDan]

"When did evolution and naturalism become synonyms?"

When abiogenesis was assumed.

[GodGunsGuts]

With the exception of national security matters, I say get the government out of the science business altogether.

[OldNavyVet]

From the introduction in “Darwin’s Ghost,” by Steve Jones. April 2001 edition

Every part of Darwin’s thesis is open to test. The clues – from fossils, genes or geography – differ in each case, but from all of them comes the conclusion that the whole of life is kin. That is no mere assertion, but a chain of deduction with every link complete. The biography of the AIDS virus, one of Nature’s newest and tiniest products, is almost complete and that of whales – the largest animals ever seen – is fragmentary, but they are cousins under the skin. The AIDS virus is change seen under the microscope, and the whale the same process viewed, in glimpses and over long ages, through a biological telescope. Evolution at the extremes of size is an apt prelude to the great drama that is Darwinism.

[rae4palin]

Great article.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thank you. It’s good to expose the Temple of Darwin’s evo-religion from time to time :o)

[GodGunsGuts]

You should go through that book and assign each sentence a verse number.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes, sexual reproduction is almost as big of a miracle as life itself for evolutionists.

[editor-surveyor]

New pressure has been put on the models by the realization that small bodies spiral into the star on short timescales (in just a few hundred orbits). So here is their new idea: the pebbles just leaped over the size barrier. Chambers said, "Objects must have grown very rapidly from sub-metre-sized pebbles into 100-km-sized bodies, possibly in a single leap."

That's just "Punctuated Equilibrium" for planets!

[GourmetDan]

"Every part of Darwin’s thesis is open to test. The clues – from fossils, genes or geography – differ in each case, but from all of them comes the conclusion that the whole of life is kin. That is no mere assertion, but a chain of deduction with every link complete. The biography of the AIDS virus, one of Nature’s newest and tiniest products, is almost complete and that of whales – the largest animals ever seen – is fragmentary, but they are cousins under the skin. The AIDS virus is change seen under the microscope, and the whale the same process viewed, in glimpses and over long ages, through a biological telescope. Evolution at the extremes of size is an apt prelude to the great drama that is Darwinism."

Fallacy of affirming the consequent on full display.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Starting from a false premise is soooooooooo....YEC of them.

Examples of miracles in evolutionary philosophy include the sudden appearance of the universe without cause or explanation, the origin of life......

Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origins of the universe.

Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life on the Earth.

The rest, we'll see what happens when the genome of all species is completely mapped and compared.

To answer the inane and irrelevant question, the flying spaghetti monster spit out the first cell....and it came in meatball form.

[GodGunsGuts]

You only say evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of universe and the origin of life because evolution can’t explain them. And although that day will never ever come, if the evos were ever able to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life it would be explained as part of comprehensive theory of evolution.

PS The flying spaghetti monster is a fitting symbol for the Temple of Darwin.

[ElectricStrawberry]

You only say evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of universe and the origin of life because evolution can’t explain them.

No, I say such because the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of the universe or life on Earth.

if the evos were ever able to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life it would be explained as part of comprehensive theory of evolution.

No, it would fall under the Theory of the Origins of the Universe or the Theory of the Origins of Life on Earth. The Theory of Evolution is already taken.

PS: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it." just as scientifically viable as "God did it."

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Hail Darwin full of grace,
Help my horse to win the race?

[OldNavyVet]

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.

(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore:

(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.

[OldNavyVet]

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.

(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore:

(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.

[GodGunsGuts]

You guys crack me up. The so-called “Theory of Evolution” is not a theory, nor does it even attempt to give a comprehensive theory of origins. A true naturalistic theory of evolution would explain the origin of the universe and everything in it...not just minor changes in living things that are then fancifully extrapolated into a religion of common descent without evidence.

[rae4palin]

Oh, snap!

[count-your-change]

You seem conversant with the theory of evolution, perhaps you can point to just what level of already existing life evolution began operating on.
How far back in the history of life must we go before we can say, “at this point evolution began”?

[GourmetDan]

"Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example"

"This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired."

Exactly. Evolution follows the same fallacious pattern.

Evolution predicts 'change' (your quote), 'Change' is observed; therefore evolution is 'supported'. This is and always will be a logical fallacy.

Life could have been created with the adaptive attributes that we observe. Evolution is not the only option. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to claim that it is.

Amazing that you still don't see that?

[FormerRep]

GGG, You don’t get to redefine the parameters of a theory for the pure intent of discrediting it. Try sticking to the scope of the theory as it exist and try not to add more than what’s really there.

[FormerRep]

Immediately after origin.

[ElectricStrawberry]

YEs, there is this thing known as the Theory of Evolution. Maybe they didn't teach it in Administration classes.

nor does it even attempt to give a comprehensive theory of origins.

Nor SHOULD it even attempt to give one iota of a theory of origins. The ToE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS.....kick the dead strawman around a little.

A true naturalistic theory of evolution would explain the origin of the universe and everything in it

No, it wouldn't, Admin-man. Claiming as such to creat a strawman to kick around gets you nowhere.

Calling something a religion does not make it so.

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin's evo-religious creation myth fails to provide a comprehensive theory of evolution, and it fails to provide a shred of evidence that macro-evolution has ever occurred. In short, Darwinism is a complete and utter failure.

[FormerRep]

Origin of species does not state equate to origin of genus or phylum. Darwin discussed variation that give rise to new species and the mechanism for change over time. He hypothesized that enough change over time would cause a transition to a new genus and theorized that transitional forms should exist (note that these are conjecture upon which research and study are required and are NOT statements to fact). I think your imperfect denial of an imperfect theory is strangely equivocal yet hardly have the air of authority.

[GodGunsGuts]

You just underscore how silly and weak Darwin’s “ToE” really is. Not only is Darwin’s “theory” completely devoid of evidence for macro-evolution, his “theory” is also completely silent with respect to how life got started (other than to speculate that we may all be related to a warm little pond that got together with some lightening).

[ElectricStrawberry]

Right at the point where the flying spaghetti monster dropped the first meatball....that’s when evolution began.

I really just don’t get how people demand that a theory does something it was never intended to do.

I demand that string theory provide the mechanism behind which gravity occurs!!!

[Natural Law]

"The so-called “Theory of Evolution” is not a theory, nor does it even attempt to give a comprehensive theory of origins."

To quote Ronald Reagan; "There you go again". Confabulation won't win any arguments or converts. You don't get to redefine words and scientific principles or to infer content not included in them to support your fallacious unfounded assumptions. Its far better to cut and paste the truth than to make stuff up as you go along. To rehabilitate your credibility you are going to have to operate in the realm of truth for a while.

[ElectricStrawberry]

...his “theory” is also completely silent with respect to how life got started...

His theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE GOT STARTED. Didn't they teach you that in Admin classes?

Why were there no Tyrannosaurus rex "kinds" on the Ark?

[count-your-change]

It’s a quite reasonable question: If evolution only pertains to life once begun, at what point in the history of life does evolution start operating?

You make statements about evolution so either you know what the theory stipulates or not and making silly comments like this, “Right at the point where the flying spaghetti monster dropped the first meatball....that’s when evolution began”, are not a substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.

Would you like to try again?

[OldNavyVet]

Evolution predicts 'change' (your quote), 'Change' is observed; therefore evolution is 'supported'.

Although I agree with most of the content above, I'd like you to direct readers to the source of what you call "your quote."

In addition, I'd like to see a logical layout of what you call fallacy in the above.

[count-your-change]

of what?

[Natural Law]

"at what point in the history of life does evolution start operating?"

If you consider the ability to replicate to be a defining qualification of life then process began immediately with the first replication.

[Natural Law]

"Darwin's evo-religious creation myth"

Ouch! Put some ice on that. Your credibility just took another major slap on the nose. Darwin did not address creation, his work was limited to the variation and the origin and specialization of the variation in life after creation, which he attributed to the Creator.

[GourmetDan]

"Although I agree with most of the content above, I'd like you to direct readers to the source of what you call "your quote.""

You included a quote in your post # 11. That quote is 'your quote'.

"In addition, I'd like to see a logical layout of what you call fallacy in the above."

You already did that w/ Fred and I agreed with you.

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with the origin of life because his “theory” can’t explain it. Nor does it provide a shred of evidence for the macro-evolution of the already living. All in all, darwin’s unscientific creation myth has been a complete failure, and is rapidly becoming a laughingstock and an embarrassment, even among evos.

[OldNavyVet]

Thank you for your support.

I rest my case.

[Behemoth the Cat]

And here we go again, the psychiatric ward again at work...
More seriously, I am impressed. One day they discuss biology with biologists. Then physics with physicists (e.g. radioactive decay). Today they show how stupid astronomers are. You know what, guys? Take it a step further. The science as we know it has proven itself by producing technology. Produce your own, better technology, on the foundation of your better science, and make our jaws drop.

[Moonman62]

The science as we know it has proven itself by producing technology. Produce your own, better technology, on the foundation of your better science, and make our jaws drop.

Or better yet. They should ditch their materialist computers and pray their anti-science screeds on to FR.

[GourmetDan]

"Thank you for your support."

No, thank you.

"I rest my case."

It is agreed that evolution is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Kozak]

The vast majority of Christians are smart enough to recognize the six days in Genesis is allegory, and not to mix their faith with scientific inquiry. So speak for yourself, you embarrass the rest of us.

[spirited irish]

snip: The so-called “Theory of Evolution” is not a theory...

Spirited: Whether called a theory, or more correctly an anti-creation mythos, it is not empirical but metaphysical.
Presuppositions, assumptions, theories, logic, reason, memory are absolutely necessary to the pursuit of science, yet all are metaphysical and not of the sensory or material realm. And as evolutionary naturalism rules out the immaterial (metaphysical) realm, it cancels itself out as well.

[Behemoth the Cat]

"...and not to mix their faith with scientific inquiry."

Personally, I do not understand their suicidal zeal. It's suicidal, because they have to turn virtually every scientific discipline upside down to give it a superficial semblance of reconciliation with their interpretation of the Bible. If isotope ratios are inconvenient, then to hell with the decay rate. If the chronology derived from geological layers are inconvenient, then to hell with stratigraphy. To hell with physics. To hell with computer science and mathematics. And, of course, to hell with biology.

Actually, all this quackery is completely unnecessary. If one wants to believe in God creating the Earth 6,000 years ago in 6 days, then there is a very simple way of reconciling it with material evidence: it was completely within God's capabilities to create not only the Earth and the living things, but also, for reasons known to God, the fossils and the right isotopic ratios to suggest a longer history. Feel free to believe, and all this juggling, cherry picking, false 'gotchas', spinning and twisting the reality (called 'creation science') becomes completely unnecessary.