Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

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

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

[bwest]

Accept the Biblical account of creation on faith alone; as a Christian myself, I will respect and defend your decision.
But try to “prove” creation by defending the scientific accuracy of creationism, and I’ll be saddened by your lack of faith.
Please don’t make Christians look stupid.

[Kalamata]

>>Accept the Biblical account of creation on faith alone; as a Christian myself, I will respect and defend your decision.
*******************************

I was a theistic evolutionist until about 7 or 8 years ago, so I understand the emotional turmoil you must be going through when someone challenges your faith in scientism. I learned the truth — that Genesis is history — by first examining the geological column. I was so dumbfounded by what I saw, I had to examine it over and over again before I would believe my own eyes.

>>But try to “prove” creation by defending the scientific accuracy of creationism, and I’ll be saddened by your lack of faith.
*******************************

The world-wide geological column, the observations of the natural limits built-into the adaptation and speciation of life forms, the world-wide fossil record loaded with marine fossils, and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, all support the accuracy of Genesis. My faith in the Word of God has never been stronger.

Nothing supports the secular narratives of Darwin and Lyell, except just-so stories. Therefore, I admit to lacking faith in evolutionism and uniformitarianism.

The so-called “big bang” theory is also loaded with wild speculations and just-so stories, so I have no faith that it amounts to anything but a scheme by which to avoid the obvious, which is, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”

I realize the following statement may have been somewhat overplayed, but it is certainly appropriate:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” [Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers.” W. W. Norton & Company, 2nd Ed, 1992, p.16]

>>Please don’t make Christians look stupid.
*******************************

I asked you to show us evidence for evolution, and you avoided my request. You have also demonstrated that your faith in the “science of the day” supercedes your faith in the written Word of God. Therefore, by publically claiming to be a Christian, it is you who are making Christians look stupid.

Mr. Kalamata

[bwest]

It would appear that I’ve smoked you out. Your insular view of Christianity precludes any real understanding of science, and the beautiful harmony of science and faith. Your conclusions, based purely on rationalization, are ludicrous.
Fortunately, you don’t make all Christians look stupid. You jealously keep that all to yourself.

[Kalamata]

>>It would appear that I’ve smoked you out. Your insular view of Christianity precludes any real understanding of science, and the beautiful harmony of science and faith. Your conclusions, based purely on rationalization, are ludicrous. Fortunately, you don’t make all Christians look stupid. You jealously keep that all to yourself.
*********************************************

Do you know how to turn a snarky, self-righteous evolutionist into a babbling idiot? Ask him or her for scientific evidence for the religion of evolutionism, like I asked you.

Every Christian I know loves the Word of God, and cannot get enough of it. Why are you afraid of the Word? Does it rock your worldview to read specifics like these?

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” — Gen 7:11 KJV

Fairy tales begin with, “once upon a time,” or “millions of years ago,” but not with “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month.”

How about population statistics? You do believe in that branch of science, don’t you? Let’s try it on the three sons of Noah:

“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.” — Gen 9:18-19 KJV

The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, an ancient text that Christ and his Apostles frequently quoted, states the flood occurred about 3,000 B.C. Applying that to Noah’s children, we have:

1) Starting population = 6 people (Noah’s sons and their wives)
2) Ending population = 7 billion (current population of the earth)
3) Time passed = 5000 years (since the flood)

Calculated growth rate: 0.41755%

Summary: less than a half-percent annual growth rate is required to reach the current population in 5000 years, starting with a population of 6, which was the child-bearing population in the days of Genesis 9:19.

Numbers like that scare the daylights out of the evolutionism establishement and their devotees — those who understand the math. It shouldn’t bother you.

I eagerly await your next babbling rant.

Mr. Kalamata

[bwest]

I asked you not to make Christians look stupid, yet you persist in that endeavor.

Why have you deflected from the original topic and launched instead into a general, shotgun defense of literal scripture instead? As I said in an earlier post, I have the utmost respect for those who believe the literal word of the Bible. Just don’t try to strengthen your weak faith by parading a farcical scientific rationalization.

The Bible is not a science text.

One more point: in your population growth example, do you realize that you used a formula for calculating annuity value? Your “mathematics” does not consider that people die, or that events like famines, plagues, etc. have a significant long term population effect.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re not alone. There are more than a few doubters like yourself who do their damnedest to make other Christians look stupid.

[Kalamata]

>>I asked you not to make Christians look stupid, yet you persist in that endeavor.
*********************************************

If you don’t want Christians to look stupid, then quit writing stupid things, or quit pretending to be a Christian.

>>Why have you deflected from the original topic and launched instead into a general, shotgun defense of literal scripture instead?
*********************************************

I have remained on topic. You have not.

David Gelernter (the ‘topic’) rejected Darwinism because there is no scientific evidence to support it; and he emphasized the fact that diehard Darwinists, like you, will resort to any argument, including ad hominems to, in his own words, “keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever . . . Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory, but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement for religion for the many troubled souls who need one.”

That is precisely my argument against your worldview.

>>As I said in an earlier post, I have the utmost respect for those who believe the literal word of the Bible.
*********************************************

You lack candor. You have shown no respect for those who do not bow down to your world view.

>>Just don’t try to strengthen your weak faith by parading a farcical scientific rationalization.”
*********************************************

Undecipherable gibberish.

>>The Bible is not a science text.
*********************************************

You are unlearned. The Bible is loaded with scientific facts.

>>One more point: in your population growth example, do you realize that you used a formula for calculating annuity value? Your “mathematics” does not consider that people die, or that events like famines, plagues, etc. have a significant long term population effect.
*********************************************

This is getting tedious. The solution for ‘rate of growth’ over a period of time is a simple mathmatical calculation that is well established. It goes like this:

GR = P(t) - P(t0)/(P(t0) * (t - t0))

>>You have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re not alone. There are more than a few doubters like yourself who do their damnedest to make other Christians look stupid.
*********************************************

If you don’t want Christians to look stupid, then quit writing stupid things, or quit pretending to be a Christian. Either will work.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Before you pull your hair out trying to solve the formula I gave you in the previous post, you would do well to try this one first, using these variables:

k = growth rate
P = population
t = time

Population growth rate formula:

P1 = P0 * e^k(t1-t0)

Solve for k:

P1 /P0 = e^k*(t1-t0)

ln(P1/P0) = k * (t1-t0)

ln(P1/P0) / (t1-t0) = k

Famines, plagues, wars, etc., are irrelevant to the calculation. The growth rate is what it is.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Seruzawa: "The chance of one small protein chain assembling by accident is around 10 to 164th power.
To have a cell you needs many many proteins all at once in a combined area behind a cell wall.
Good luck with that."

Not so much luck necessarily required.
Abiogenesis hypotheses do not require that a cell spring fully formed from some "primordial soup", thus needing the "chance" event of "10 to the 164th power."

What it does require is millions of small changes spread over billions of years.
None of those small changes needs to be improbable, indeed, given the right conditions, they should be inevitable.
Consider "Murphy's Law" in reverse -- "whatever can go wrong will go wrong" reversed to "whatever mutation can happen will happen".

The number of bacteria on Earth is estimated at 10 to the 30th power, multiplying thousands of times per year over billions of years creates almost unlimited opportunities for "mistakes", aka evolution.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Well, DNA is a programming language.
Computer scientists are certainly qualified to comment on biologists’ inane theory that a programming language can write itself."

Suppose we stipulate that nothing in the Universe "writes itself" or ever does anything outside the bounds of our Creator's intentions?

The scientifically relevant question then becomes, did our Creator Himself individually mold every one of millions of species on earth, or could He not allow His "natural processes" (i.e., evolution) to do at least some of the work for Him?

Can we even reliably tell which DNA modifications were made indirectly by "nature" and which directly by nature's Creator?
So, for scientific purposes, is there any reason to reach beyond science's natural boundaries to find supernatural explanations for observed speciation?

[BroJoeK]

ro_dreaming: "There has been no evidence, anywhere, of MACRO-evolutionary changes.
Say, a dinosaur turning into a tern, swallow, eagle, vulture, or anything else."

There is no such thing as "macro-evolution", there is only short-term "micro-evolution" repeated millions & millions of times.
That's how different breeds diverge into species, become separate genera in distinct families of disparate orders, etc.
No "macro-evolution" involved, all just "micro-" repeated millions of times.

= Evolution.

[BroJoeK]

Aspasia: "I did follow the idea that the time span of the fossil record doesn't square with what is mathematically required by the genetic code."

All such mathematics are totally bogus, unrelated to any physical process and so pure hypothetical speculations.

They are "proof" of nothing.

[aspasia]

Proof? What is proof?

[aspasia]

All such mathematics are totally bogus

I was looking for a star much higher. But the odds are against me.

[RinaseaofDs]

Succinctly and brilliantly put. Thank you.

[RinaseaofDs]

It was a mathematician who ultimately validated quantum physics. Einstein would have been in big trouble without Heisenberg.

[aspasia]

I find Stephen Meyer's comment informative:

. . . by early 2000s there been a number of different experimental measures of the rarity of the functional genes and proteins versus all the gibberish sequences right and for a short fruit for example just one result for a short protein 150 amino acids long the ratio is one protein that will fold into a a functional structure for it compared to 10 to the 77th jibberish sequences so the ratio of functional to non-functional is 1 over 10 to the 77th power It's not just that the odds are prohibitive, the odds must also guarantee that in the end, the development of any activity is consistent any other development

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "The created kind is a specific scientific term, corresponding in general to the taxonomic rank of family, but without all the evolutionism baggage. "

By definition "the created kind" is a non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science.

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

"What does or does not belong to a family — or whether a described family should be recognized at all — are proposed and determined by practicing taxonomists.
There are no hard rules for describing or recognizing a family..."

An example of a taxonomic family is Bovidae, meaning cattle & related.
The Bovidae family includes:

1. eight sub-families with
2. 51 genera which have
3. 143 living species plus
4. 300 known extinct species identified by fossils dated as far back as
5. 20 million years ago.

Bovidae as a group would appear to have no correlation to biblical "kinds".
Here are six species (of 143) of the bovids' family:

[Dark Knight]

But Einstein was uncertain about Heisenberg.

But I do not general post on these threads anymore. It is not any fun without Right Wing Professor.

Evolution is the observation set. Niche fulfillment, speciation et al are the theories. If a “theory” is useful, it either explains more than the previous “useful” one or is a better predictor of future observations. For the most part, biologists have used thought experiments to explain why visual characteristics appear in mostly animals.

I suppose sipping brandy in a club in London that could be cool. Right now, in China, they are artificially splicing DNA from multiple species at a great rate. If you like, creation. Even if you don’t like, it is creation. Creation is becoming a technology. The encoding is becoming less of a mystery with each passing year. Darwinism has been around quite a while with a few mistake at the beginning involving speciation, but a few examples have been found.

Cut and paste genetics will probably include some homage to Darwin to get funding from the English speaking world for a little while, but I believe Lamarck and Darwin will both have their paragraph in Sci history books. But the tech marches on.

DK

[BroJoeK]

YogiCowboy: "Intra-species adaptation is observable and replicable, even within a single specimen during its life cycle; the rest is not."

By scientific definition a confirmed observation is a fact.
Similarly, falsifiable explanations are called hypotheses and a confirmed hypothesis is a scientific theory.

Evolution is a confirmed hypothesis = theory, based on the entirely reasonable explanation that if you multiply "intra-species adaption" times, say, a million, the result is evolution of species.

[aspasia]

non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science.

Very well, but you can't begin with the supposition of naturalism without making that choice.

Likewise, it is not unreasonable to admit supernatural causes while engaged in science.