Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[Kalamata]

>>>>bwest: “The ToE and Christian faith coexist perfectly.

>>BroJoeK, well said. Our Founding Fathers would have agreed. Bears repeating.

More baloney. The theory of evolution is not science, because there is no scientific evidence that supports it. It is strictly a faith-based religion.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>> God’s Word says not one word about science as we understand it.

You are remarkably unlearned. The Bible is loaded with science.

>>Sure, it’s hypothetically possible that God created plants somewhere before He created the stars we can see, but so far we’ve found no evidence of it.

Who is we? Scientists have found no evidence for the creation process. There are boatloads of speculations, but no evidence

>>That puts such ideas in the realm of scientific speculation.

That is exactly the way it is. Astronomer and astrophysicists have no clue how or when the universe was formed.

Dan

[aspasia]

to search for better explanations whenever evidence suggests they should.

And that is exactly what Meyer and Gelernter are discussing. However, such discussion has become verboten if it should call into question any faults in evolutionary theory. Gelernter makes a point of that as well, as he says, "we have a cautionary tale . . . what has happened to our English departments could happen to us." Certainly run over with jackboots there.

[Kalamata]

>>Neither Christ nor Moses ever said a single word about science as we understand it.

You are remarkably unlearned. Moses outlined the creation process, the global flood, the dividing of the nations by language, and finally the dividing of the earth. Christ told us that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation.

What else do you need? The endorsement of an atheist?

*******************
>>What you here call “pseudo-science” is, in fact, real science, natural-science by definition, and there is no other recognized definition for science. Natural-science, by definitions, does not deal in words like “belief”, “faith” or “truth”, but rather in confirmed observations (=”facts”) and falsifiable explanations (=”hypotheses” or “theories”).
Basic evolution is a well-confirmed theory based on literal mountains of confirmed observations.”

There are no observable facts supporting the religion of evolutionism. It is strictly faith-based.

*******************
>>The Bible does not condemn science as we understand it, but does tell us to be fruitful, to multiply, to prosper, replenish and have dominion over life on Earth. Those imply, to me at least, careful study & understanding of natural processes.

No. God was simply telling us that plants and animals multiply after their respective kinds, which is observable science. There are no exceptions, either in life, nor in the fossil record.

*******************
>>”Sanctimonious attitude” is what I’m seeing from Kalamata.

No, that would be bwest, and now you.

*******************
>>In fact there are literal mountains of evidence — including billions of fossils collected in hundreds of thousands of species — each one showing transitional elements with species both before and, if any, after.”

There is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record for common descent. The observable evidence supports the biblical concept of the created kind and devolution, not evolution.

The fossil record also supports the the biblical narrative with abrupt appearance followed by stasis, and disparity before diversity.

The geological column supports a global flood with its widespread uneroded, unbioturbated sedimentary layers, loaded with marine fossils in virtually every layer, including the topmost ones. The folding, not cracking, of the sedimentary layers covering mountain ranges points to geological upheaval while the sedimentary layers were still pliable.

You are welcome to provide evidence for common descent, but I won’t hold my breath, because there is none.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Calculated growth rate: 0.41755%"

Here is a moving-graphic depiction of human population growth over time.

[Kalamata]

>>”Junk DNA” is a term, like “Big Bang”, which attained great popular cachet for being both short and descriptive.
The latest thinking on “junk DNA” is that some small part of it may indeed serve certain purposes.”

Small part? Where do you get your information? I read it is 80% of the genome and counting. These are from 2012 articles:

“This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. “I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes. These results are going “to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks,” Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.” [Elizabeth Pennisi, “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA.” Science, Vol. 337, Iss. 6099, Sept 7, 2012, p.1159]

“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.” [Durham et al, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.” Nature, 489, September 6, 2012, p.57]

This is from a 2013 paper that cites Durham et al:

“A major problem with this type of selective analysis is that nearly all of the entire genome is now believed to be functional, as stated in the recent ENCODE project consortium reports (2012). The non-coding regions have been shown to provide many critical control features and nucleotide templates (Dunham, et al., 2012; Wells, 2011; Bergman, 2001). Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree. This research is significant for chimp-human comparisons because often only protein-coding sequences were compared under the widely accepted, but now debunked assumption that 95 percent of the genome is junk.” [Bergman & Tomkins, “The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature.” Institute for Creation Research, 2013]

Jerry Coyne got into the discussion a few years earlier:

“Now that we’ve finally sequenced the genomes of both chimp and human, we can see directly that more than 80 percent of all the proteins shared by the two species differ in at least one amino acid. Since our genomes have about 25,000 protein-making genes, that translates to a difference in the sequence of more than 20.000 of them. That’s not a trivial divergence. Obviously, more than a few genes distinguish us. And molecular evolutionists have recently found that humans and chimps differ not only in the sequence of genes, but also in the presence of genes. More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over 1,400 novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps . . . Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an ape-like ancestor probably required substantial genetic change... Conclusive proof that a given gene causes human/chimp differences requires moving the gene from one species to another and seeing what difference it makes, and that’s not the kind of experiment anyone would want to try.” [Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Evolution is True.” Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.230, 231]

The concept of “Junk DNA” is a typical “proof” of evolution, that is, whenever junk scientists run into something they don’t understand, it automatically becomes proof of evolution.

***************
>>Other parts may represent ancient characteristics now “turned off” in modern species which do, occasionally through mutations, get “turned back on”. This potential “turning off” and “turning on” of certain DNA functions can make “random” mutations far less than “random”.

Please cite your references for that claim.

***************
>>Nobody has ever claimed that science, then or now, has “all the right answers”, only that scientists continue to search for better explanations whenever evidence suggests they should.

That is the typical excuse for wild imaginations and extrapolations, disguised as science, that we have been plagued with since Charlie Darwin arrived on the scene.

The open secret of scientific research is, if you don’t understand something, don’t pretend it to be science.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Baloney.
The created kind has been a part of natural science from the beginning of creation.
Atheists have tried to erase it from the ranks of science, but they have failed, and failed miserably."

Completely wrong, beginning here: the term "natural-science" comes from our Founding Fathers' understanding of "natural philosophy", meaning that branch of philosophy which studied natural explanations for natural processes.
It was never intended to justify or excuse atheism, merely to focus methodologically on the natural realm.

So, when we say "science" today, we mean what our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers understood by "natural philosophy" and none of them were atheists (not even Thomas Paine).
Your term, "created kind" has never, ever, been a scientific term, and your claim that it roughly corresponds to taxonomic "family" has no basis in any scientific literature.

quoting BJK: "The taxonomic rank of family goes back to the 1700s and refers to genera with similar characteristics, but there is no strict definition."

Kalamata: "True.
That is the new-fangled definition imagined by Linnaeus, which is still subject to the imagination of the user."

"New-fangled"?! Sure, in 1735!!
Linnaeus' ideas (like Darwin's) have been revised & updated for centuries, but remain today useful in naming, classifying & understanding life on Earth.

Kalamata: "On the other hand, Children can typically understand the created kind.
In his great work, “Natural Theology”, William Paley... "

Careful citing Unitarian Paley, as he is sometimes said to have influenced Charles Darwin -- after all their portraits face each other, side by side, at Christ's College of Cambridge, which both attended and where Darwin studied Paley's works.

Paley is most famous for creating the watchmaker analogy (c. 1802) to support God's existence.
He is not known for any expertise in biology or taxonomic classifications.

Kalamata: "I doubt any serious scientist today does not understand that the created kind is what is typically called the “family”."

No recognized biologist today, none, would formally associate your made-up term "created kind" with the taxonomic category of "family".
Indeed, there is no scientific definition for "created kind", never was, very likely never will be.

[Kalamata]

>>>Here is a moving-graphic depiction of human population growth over time.
{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwmA3Q0_OE}

Someone has a vivid imagination at the AMNH. This is their fake whale evolution page:

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales-giants-of-the-deep/whale-evolution

And this is their fake “apes-to-humans” page:

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins

All we know for certain about long-term population grown statistics is the starting population (either 2 or 6), and the current population. The growth rate for a population of 6 growing into the current population of 7 billion over a 5,000 year period is 0.41755%. It is simple math.

There is no evidence the earth is millions of years old.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Aspasia: "I still find Stephen Meyer is more convincing:"

I'm pretty sure that you were already convinced before you learned of Stephen Meyer.
He merely confirmed what you wished to believe.

Aspasia: "You've got 10 to the 40th possible mutations against a search space 10 to the 77th strong right so if you do your exponential math you end up with 1/10 trillion trillion trillionth of the possible combinations so in that case are you more likely to succeed or fail--you're overwhelmingly more likely to fail to..."

G.I.G.O. rules your mind, FRiend.
Such calculations are worse that useless when based on false assumptions and misunderstood processes.

The reality is, any chemical reaction is naturally guaranteed to happen, once conditions for it are right -- that's 100% probability, not 1 in 10 to anything.
And the chemical reactions hypothesized by abiogenesis are never "life" springing up magically in one step, but rather likely millions of little baby-steps scattered over billions of years = maybe one important change every thousand years, somewhere, anywhere, on Earth.
So, it's not a matter of "probabilities", but rather of when, where and what conditions were needed to make each tiny baby-step inevitable, from chemistry to biology.

[Kalamata]

>>Completely wrong, beginning here: the term “natural-science” comes from our Founding Fathers’ understanding of “natural philosophy”, meaning that branch of philosophy which studied natural explanations for natural processes. It was never intended to justify or excuse atheism, merely to focus methodologically on the natural realm.

You mean like Isaac Newton, William Paley and Matthew Maury? I agree.

***************************
>>So, when we say “science” today, we mean what our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers understood by “natural philosophy” and none of them were atheists (not even Thomas Paine).”

No, science is science. What many call science today, such as evolution, is not science, but religion.

Paine was a deist, much like modern-day “theistic evolutionists”, who thought he knew more that the God of the Bible:

“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the surf, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.” [Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason.” Citadel Press, 1988, pp.72-73]

I adhere to the faith of a young earth and special creation, like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Steno.

***************************
>>Your term, “created kind” has never, ever, been a scientific term, and your claim that it roughly corresponds to taxonomic “family” has no basis in any scientific literature.”

You are simply parrotting the words of the anti-God types. I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature? Did you not bother to read my post? Are you not aware that the Bible is not only historical and prophetic literature, but also scientific?

***************************
>>”New-fangled”? Sure, in 1735!! Linnaeus’ ideas (like Darwin’s) have been revised & updated for centuries, but remain today useful in naming, classifying & understanding life on Earth.”

You, yourself said there was no strict definition. The “kind”, on the other hand, has been well-known and well-established in meaning for thousands of years.

***************************
>>Careful citing Unitarian Paley, as he is sometimes said to have influenced Charles Darwin — after all their portraits face each other, side by side, at Christ’s College of Cambridge, which both attended and where Darwin studied Paley’s works.”

The subject was the concept of “kind”, and Paley understood it. In fact, he frequently used the word to distinguish the different kinds of animals.

***************************
>>Paley is most famous for creating the watchmaker analogy (c. 1802) to support God’s existence.
He is not known for any expertise in biology or taxonomic classifications.

Is that an adhominem?

***************************
>>No recognized biologist today, none, would formally associate your made-up term “created kind” with the taxonomic category of “family”.”

It depends on how you define “recognized” biologists. It is almost a certainty that a so-called “evolutionary biologist” would not accept the classification of the “created kind” because of biblical connotations, but not because of science. Evolutionary biology is not science, so who cares what they think?

***************************
>>Indeed, there is no scientific definition for “created kind”, never was, very likely never will be.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that atheists have been trying to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education. But he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh. Count on it.

As aforementioned, the Bible, which is a book of science, divides different groups of plants and animals into “kinds”, depending on certain characteristics. Recent research has substantiated that there are genetic barriers that keep species within their respective kinds. Therefore, genetic research and observable science both point to the biblical kind as real science.

Why are you quibbling about the created kind? Shouldn’t you be trying to find evidence of evolution for everyone to see?

Mr. Kalamata

[aspasia]

Please don’t confuse me. Probability changes after an event. In other words, after something has happened, we have a 100% probability, it’s not 1 i n 10 to anything. Before the event, not so. That’s why it is said, “once the conditions for it are right.” Nobody is disputing a uniformity of natural causes as a precondition.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "The concept of “Abiogenesis” is about the stupidest form of pseudo-science imaginable.
It barely rises to the level of pseudo-science.
Hear it from a real scientist:"

Nonsense, I did listen to all of your 58 minute rabbit-hole, and the take-aways are these:

1. As of today, there's tons more unknown than known, so lots of employment opportunities for bright young researchers.

2. People who claim that their hypotheses & theories are "facts" do science more harm than good.

In the end your speaker proposes a moratorium on further Origin of Life research, why?
Apparently, to punish those who've claimed life has already been created by scientists.
Then, I'd suppose, as soon as everybody who made such claims recants their heresies, then the research can continue?

From 2014 & 2015:

[BroJoeK]

Aspasia: " Still, give it some time, and lots of it, every single person born could be a virtuous violinists, if only the direction of our evolution should find that advantageous.
So far, the development of eyesight has found that chance. "

Sure if, hypothetically, playing the violin were somehow as important to human survival as is eyesight, then, yes, humans would eventually become experts in it.

[BroJoeK]

Aspasia: "If we circumscribe the object of your study in such a way that prohibits a complete explanation then science doesn't give the whole picture.
It just gives it's natural aspects."

But science, natural-science, was never, ever, intended to give the whole picture.
No pretense was made historically that "natural philosophy" was the only philosophy permitted.
Instead naturalism referred simply to the natural component of the overall "big picture" which always included God's spiritual realm.
Indeed, it was understood that God both created and ruled over the natural realm.
Science then was simply hoping to understand, as some believers said, "the mind of God".

Only in recent generations have some (most?) scientists begun to insist that the natural word is the only world that truly exists, that there is no spiritual realm and no God to create & rule over it.

But the fault here is not science itself, rather it's that atheists attempt to define away all other forms of knowledge.

Aspasia: "And who is to say?
If you get to choose what science is, you're not exactly beginning with a blank slate.
That choice functions as a presupposition, and you've begun as a philosopher or theologian."

Not me, certainly, but science writ large, historically what our Founding generations understood by terms like "natural philosophy" and "natural science".
The name of Enlightenment philosopher, Unitarian William Paley, has been mentioned on this thread.
He invented the "watchmaker" analogy to support the idea of God the Creator, and our Founders were perfectly happy with that.

Again, my argument here is not that natural-science itself is philosophically atheistic, only that philosophical atheists deny any realm outside the natural one.

[BroJoeK]

Aspasia: "Obviously there are definitions of what constitutes a good chance that has nothing to do with the probability of it actually happening."

But the "definition" I'm talking about is: what is science and what is not?
By definition, science deals only in natural explanations for natural processes.
Anything else, i.e., the supernatural, falls into a different category of study, such as theology, or, indeed, magic.

[freedumb2003]

>>The concept of “Abiogenesis” is about the stupidest form of pseudo-science imaginable. It barely rises to the level of pseudo-science.<<

Yet it is the “go-to” for CRitters. The usual form of the question is “if TToE is real where did people come from?”

My pointing out that abiogenesis is meaningless in the discussion of TToE usually gets ignored.

And when you post from a “scientist” you should post from a scientist.

But thanks for the entertainment. Rather than the science version of rachel madcow you previously posted (behe), now we get a PeeWee Herman. Did you get this from Sac Bee?

[aspasia]

was never, ever, intended to give the whole picture

That's a peculiar bird's-eye view. But at least you note its limitation. Still, how did it ever get out of control? Friedrich Hayek in The Counter-Revolution of Science, Studies in the Abuse of Reason describes scientism: "the mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed."

It's now gone beyond "-ism" for Darwinism. The dialogue must be turned off, especially if anyone suggests that Darwin took his idea too far to describe the whole picture.

[BroJoeK]

ro_dreaming: "Dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds.
Apes didn’t turn into humans.
Amoeba didn’t turn into anything but amoeba."

The fossil evidence suggests that some ancestors of dinosaurs were also ancestors of birds.

Fossils also suggest that some ancestors of modern apes were also ancestors of humans.

As for amoebas billions of years ago, current thinking is protist eukaryotes similar to Choanoflagellate are the ancestors of multicell organisms first seen in the "Cambrian explosion" circa 550 million years ago.
Far from all protists were amoebas.

[freedumb2003]

>>It’s now gone beyond “-ism” for Darwinism. The dialogue must be turned off, especially if anyone suggests that Darwin took his idea too far to describe the whole picture. <<

Who the heck needs science? The fact it Makes Things Go is just a lucky coincidence.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "More baloney.
The theory of evolution is not science, because there is no scientific evidence that supports it.
It is strictly a faith-based religion."

So, first you poke your own eyes out, then claim there's no such thing as "sight"?
In fact there are mountains of evidence confirming evolution theory, a theory which has never been falsified.