Wednesday February 10, 2016
Jump to content
While I personally think the Intelligent Design Theory has some flaws, it does account for the obvious intelligence in the design of living things. I even read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe to see first hand what was drawing some scientists away from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I did not see in that book, or any other ID literature, any of the multitude of shortcomings you have put forth here. I cannot help but question if you have truly examined this theory by actually studying the basic foundations of the theory. If you knew about the concept of irreducible complexity that is a key component to the theory, many of your claims would have to be abandoned. Your next to last paragraph indicates that you are unaware that this is a theory that belongs in the life sciences and would therefore have no influence on the development of electricity, electronics and so forth as you have claimed. Mr. Lister and myself have both called into question Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Nowhere in his letter or my letters or posts do we question science and nowhere do I see where anyone has called science evil. This false claim can be easily seen by anyone willing to read the previous posts and letters. Because Mr. Lister has a different opinion than you, you have categorized him, called him intolerant and called into question his science education (even though he is a professional biologist), as well as assigning him motives that are not evident in his writing. Would you call yourself tolerant or intolerant? Questioning theories is a part of science and science cannot be science without the questioning process. Genesis 1 explains the origin of matter, energy, time and intelligence as well as the origin of the kinds of living things. It should only be discarded if it can be refuted by observational science, not categorically just because it is in bibliical scripture. The validity of the concept of kinds is established by observations of living things. That should establish some credibility for this ancient account of the beginning.
I would like to show you a few conflicts between man's word (represented by the microbe to man Theory of Evolution) and God's Word (a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1). Evolution states that dinosaurs came before birds and Genesis says that birds came before land animals. Evolution says that the sun existed before plants and Genesis says that plants came before the sun. Evolution says that marine creatures came before land plants and Genesis says that land plants came before marine creatures. These are just 3 of many examples that demonstrate that a person must choose who to believe. These statements are in direct conflict, they cannot be reconciled with one another. One quick example for the Big Bang is that it states that the sun was created before the earth while Genesis states that the earth was created before the sun. One statement is true and one is false. We must choose who to believe. The concept of kinds stated in Genesis 1 (ten different times) stands today as a truth that has never been negated by OBSERVATIONAL science. As you have mentioned, science is continually revising theories as new evidence is discovered, but this foundational truth of biblical creationism has never had to be revised as scientists have never OBSERVED one kind of living thing giving rise to another. (Kind is usually on the level of family in the human classification system.) This gives me great confidence as a believer in God's Word as opposed to man's word.
I do teach basic genetics to older children in Sunday School at the appropriate time so they can understand the simple difference between the biblical view and what they learn in the public school classroom. There is a boundary placed by the Creator God and shown to man in Genesis 1 beyond which no created kind has gone or will go. That is a prediction that is based on my creationist view that still holds today. The Biology books will tell them that the changes which occur for adaptation (which are observed) leads to one kind of animal becoming another (which has not been observed). This is truth that should be taught in all classrooms even if its origin is in the Bible. What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious?
Time and again you mention the overwhelming evidence for the Theory of Evolution. The overwhelming evidence lies in the observations of adaptation. The alleged fact that these adaptations lead to a microbe becoming all living things is an evolutionary assumption that is not verified by observational science.
I must once again make note that cross breeding and genetic manipulation can only be sucessfull within a created kind of life. Manipulating the genetics of a kind (or form) of life has never caused a new kind to appear. This is significant, because both of these procedures involve a whole lot of intelligence which cannot be part of the evolutionary scenario. But still, even when intelligence is added to the mix, no new forms of life appear. Only variation within the original form can be achieved. Neither of these items can produce new genetic information that is absolutely necessary for the formation of the new forms. I must add that if the mechanism for the addition of new, useful information is not a basic tenant of evolution, it is only because it has not been found. This should be the foundation upon which the theory is formed but it is MIA. There is no foundation upon which to promote this theory. Because of this I maintain that the evidence for the theory is lacking, regardless of what the scientists say.
In addition, this theory defies some of the most observed theories and laws in science. It has to violate the Cell Theory and The Law of Biogenesis in order to be true. The Law of Cause and Effect is not evident and we are led to believe that livings things are becoming more and more complex and efficient which means that somehow evolution must dismiss itself from the influence of the Law of Entropy.
Concerning DNA, we know that all information codes come from a source of intelligence and this is without exception. DNA is the most compact information code known to man. Scientists are studying DNA to develop more compact information storage systems. Man's best technology in this area is miniscule in comparison. Evolutionists must make the irrational statement that DNA has to be the product of chance and random processes. What DNA shows is that the Creator is a lot more intelligent than man. Most scientists have a hard time accepting this logical conclusion from the study of DNA. Shouldn't logical conclusions be commonplace in a viable theory and be allowed into the school curriculum?
Please see my comments under "Kindly lawmakers must love teachers" on creationism being unscientific. My comment on this article is that I taught biology for 11 years at Payson High School and I taught how different theories had different views on the same evidence when it comes to interpreting evidence from the unobservable past. I kept the discussions in the scientific realm and I did not receive any complaints from this style of teaching.
An hour or two on answersingenesis.org or icr.org will show that the mainstream creationists know that adaptation is observable and can change a species to a degree that a new species may be named. In other words, I do not believe animals were created exactly as they appear now! What is disputed by creationists is the belief that one kind of life can become another kind. Any alleged evidence for that event in the past is subject to interpretive filters simply because it cannot be observed in the the lab or in present day nature. Because there is no mechanism known for the microbe to add information to its genome to become all living things including man I must conclude that evolution in the microbe to man sense has never happened. The fact is that the Biblical concept of kinds found in Genesis 1 is the most accurate explanation of what we can observe today in life that I have found.
I have always believed that data that is collected by a scientist using the scientific method from beginning to end and verified as valid by other scientists should be considered; and in fact truth can not be discerned until all valid data is considered. My Bible based biology homeschoolers were taught to learn evolutionary views because I want them to be able to discern what the people who held to those views believed and why. I submit that that is the best kind of teaching.
Finally, as those home school students have progressed into college biology they have been ridiculed and ostracized if they would dare ask about an interpretation of evidence that would support a non evolutionary view. There is a lot more need for this bill than most people realize.
The Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth research project presented a 1500 page research report documenting their findings. The project was conducted over several years by a team of PHD scientists. There were 2 national conferences held to report the findings, a 200 page book for the public and a DVD were also produced. Their findings were peer reviewed and published in research magazines. The study was done by scientists who believe in a young earth but the research was conducted by the scientific method and the data collected was reported for further testing by the scientific community. Why would this be called unscientific? What more can you do to be considered scientific? Why couldn't a science student include the fact that Carbon 14 was found in measureable amounts in both coal and diamonds which would indicate those substances are only thousands of years old. When are we going to get out of the philosophical and scientific prison that constrains people to only think that data that agrees with evolutionary dogma is scientific? Why won't secular journals publish the data and conclusions of the scientific studies done by scientists who think outside of the box?
Last login: Wednesday, February 25, 2015