monkeys on typewriters

[4him]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post. I thought we should move the part of our discussion that deals with Evolution to another thread, since this topic is fairly different from the original resurrection topic.


I realize that the monkey analogy is not a perfect analogy, but I believe that it still presents a fair picture of the challenge that would have to be surmounted in order for Evolution to occur. As I understand it, Dawkins is making a distinction between random evolution and cumulative selection, and is saying basically that the problem for Darwinian Evolution is not one of creating a structure such as an eye ‘from scratch’. Rather, it is one of creating a very simple eye, which then becomes a more complex eye, followed by a yet more complex eye etc etc.


A number of points are raised by this argument of Dawkin’s :

1)First, this is a purely theoretical construct. It is not that evidence
exists which demonstrates that human eyes or other complex structures have evolved by step by step, cumulative processes. Rather, Evolutionists such as Dawkins rightly recognize that without a step by step process, the time required for Evolution to occur would have been impossibly long.




2)Many complex structures and complex molecules exist, which serve a very specific purpose within an organism. For instance, enzymes are proteins formed by a unique sequence of amino acids. However, as well as having a very specific sequence of amino acids, a particular enzyme also needs to be folded upon itself in a unique folding pattern, in order for the enzyme
to work properly. The idea that enzymes, which have such specific structures and functions, arose from some other type of molecule, really stretches the imagination.


3)The theory of Evolution states that changes in an environment are what causes ‘Nature’ to select those creatures which are best suited to that change in the environment (eg a cold snap causes rabbits with longer hair to survive, while short haired rabbits die)


This works great for selecting traits like ‘hair length’, but what type of change in the environment, do you suppose might cause an animal to be selected which happens to have a new enzyme being produced in it ? Furthermore, wouldn’t Evolutionary theory be saying that enzymes (which seem to have a specific purpose) were at first randomly produced ? So these enzymes sit there in an organism’s body waiting for just the right set of environmental conditions to occur, that will select out creatures who happened to have these enzymes ?



4)Dawkin’s computer program demonstrated that it would take less time for the computer to select the phrase, “Methinks tis a Weasel” when this phrase is built in steps, as compared to when this phrase is built all at once. This was an interesting demonstration, which illustrated what one would have expected. However, these results don’t provide us with any proof that life came about in a similar way. Dawkins admitted that the program was rigged, because a target phrase was used. This ‘loading the
dice’ would not exist though, in the process of Darwinian Evolution.



5) Does building something that appears to be very very complex, by making improvements to simple structures, rather than all at once, really make an extremely difficult job become an easy one ? Building a human eye in a series of small steps is still not an easy task, and it is still random processes that are being expected to account for what takes place during each of the small steps. Even the most ‘simple’ molecules are still complex enough that billions of years would have been required in order for them to arise through Darwinian Evolution.


To my thinking, the reasons mentioned above are part of why I believe Evolutionists are exercising great faith, just as Christians do.


Take care,

John

[jonadams]

The most appropriate response from me will also appear to be the most evasive: I am not a scientist. I am a 20 year old political science student at Utah State University. Neither you nor I are experts on evolution. Your questions about evolution are likely uniformed and my answers would be doubly so.

On the question of evolution (or any scientific matter), I defer to the scientific community. The overwhelming consensus of scientists from different fields and disparate faiths agree that evolution has and is occurring by the process of natural selection.

I googled "the evolution of enzymes" and it yielded countless results, many of them scientific journals. Because you seem sincerely interested in the evolution of enzymes, I'd encourage you to peruse the existent reams of research.

If you disagree with the scientific consensus on evolution by natural selection, then the onus is on you to articulate a theory with more evidence and greater explanatory power.

And saying "God did it" is not a viable option. And that's not because God couldn't have done it, it's just that that answer does not provide a workable scientific theory--it isn't falsifiable in the least. Also, it poses more questions then it solves; it answers an unknown by postulating perhaps the greatest unknown: God. And lastly, the "God did it" answer commits the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. Just because we cannot currently give a natural account for something does not mean that there is a supernatural account. Thousands of years ago, people could not explain lightning. Their solution was to imagine up a god of lightning. I think many people are committing this same fallacy today as it regards the origin and development of life.

All that said, I do have a couple of thoughts in response to your questions.

"First, this (natural selection) is a purely theoretical construct."

Evolution is considered an established fact in science, but you're right that natural selection is a theory. But as you well know, a theory in science is different from mere conjecture. A scientific theory is supported by evidence. The same is true with the theory of natural selection.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm

You yourself see natural selection as a "great" theory for traits obviously advantageous for a species' survival like hair length. So it seems to me that you don't disagree with natural selection so much as you just find it deficient.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that enzymes are the Achilles heel of natural selection. So what? The choice isn't between natural selection and Biblical creationism. As an atheist, I'm not wedded to the theory. Science would just look for a more workable evolutionary mechanism.

"Dawkins admitted that the program was rigged, because a target phrase was used. This ‘loading the dice’ would not exist though, in the process of Darwinian Evolution."

Well given that evolution is "blind" and is not working for something, it does not have a target phrase. But that doesn't undermine Dawkin's argument. The Weasel program still demonstrates that the preservation of small changes in an evolving string of characters (or genes) can produce meaningful combinations in a relatively short time so long as there is a mechanism to select cumulative changes. That mechanism may not be a "target phrase," but there are certainly short-term criteria for cumulative selection: namely survival and reproductive success. And then these advantageous changes are retained through genetic inheritance.

If I'm being inarticulate on this point, I apologize. But again, I never professed to be an expert on evolution.

[runner4jesus]

www.understandthetimes.org/utttv.shtml

Roger Oakland a former evolutionist, and now a born again believer, teaches us in the link above many facets of how and why the Word of God is true as far as creation is concerned and why evolution is false in every respect.

When you arrive at Roger Oakland's page, click on each 15 minute session which is 15 minutes long. To the right of the list of videos you can scroll down all the way to 8 sessions.

[jonadams]

Thanks for the link, runner4jesus. I'll be sure to investigate, but remember: This is one man (with a religious agenda, mind you) at odds with the entire scientific community. Oakland is an outlier. I know of Muslim scholars who still insist the universe is geocentric and the world flat--really!

What exactly are Oakland's credentials? I've been reading biographies about him, and all it says is that he was a biology teacher and evolutionist (cue scary music). Could this have been high school biology?

[runner4jesus]

Glad your going to check out Roger Oakland. He is well equipped and he teaches truth on the subject of evolution. He's been there and and taught the subject of evolution so he knows all about it.

Another presentation you might want to check out is Answers in Genesis with some experts on this subject. I'll get you the link. It is quite good, and these teachers are experts with credentials if that's what your looking for. There are many videos to see. You may be something of interest in this group of videos.

www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand

[jonadams]

Answers in Genesis is not a scientific institution, but a religious one. It peddles a very conservative Christian agenda.

Consider their methodology:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
--Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

AiG makes two assumptions: that the Bible is infallible and that evolution is contrary to the Bible. So AiG is not committed to honestly researching evolution; it instead is only out to rescue its narrow reading of the Bible, science be damned.

I also question the caliber of their thinkers--they lack creditable credentials. Take Ken Ham, the president of AiG. He only has a bachelors in applied science, with some emphasis in biology. Not very impressive, frankly.

[runner4jesus]

I'm afraid there is not one shred of evidence about God's Creation that will convince you of the truth. Sadly to say, your being blinded by the god of this world Satan, :-/and believing a LIE he has perpetrated so men will go to hell. Only God can open your eyes to the truth in the Word of God. His word is TRUTH.

[kayaker4theking]

John, it's great to see that you're interested in these things. I'm also impressed, and glad, to see that you care enough to actually look things up. I know that if you continue to seek the truth, you will find it. You must realize that everyone has assumptions that they make about the universe, whether they believe in God or not, and that any evidence or facts will first be interpreted through this bias. So, just because someone has a bias doesn't nullify their argument, because everyone has a bias, whether it's toward God or away from Him. If you would like someone with the credentials though, go to www.globalflood.org. It's the website of John Baumgardner who has pretty impressive credentials. You seem to look most stuff up yourself, but you might want to start out on the origins debate or "why I believe in God" under Technical. Also his essay on the age of the earth is pretty good, but you might have to strain your mind a little to keep up with what he's saying. My question for you is this: from your earlier posts, you seem to believe in the validity of reason. Is this true? if it is, where do you get it? in other words, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?

Paul

[jonadams]

About bias: Granted, everyone has biases. But the motive of evolutionary biology is not to disprove Christianity, whereas it is AiG's expressed motive to prove Christianity true. So your dichotomy of biases being "toward God or away from Him" is a false one, I think.

Thanks for the resources, Paul. I'll also share some stuff that you may want to look into.

talkorigins.org - dedicated to rebutting the claims of AiG and other young earth/creationist sites; the site is currently down, but it should be up again shortly.

infidels.org - a site about atheism generally; it boasts a lot of great, informative articles (I've published an article about Mormonism there in fact).

And lastly, debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com - this is a well-informed and civil blog that is host to many discussions like the one we're having here.

You ask me about reason, and--perhaps this is presumptuous--seem to be laying the groundwork for a presuppositional transcendental argument for your God's existence--the argument being that logic/reason presuppose the Christian God. It's an interesting argument, but one that ultimately has little traction. If this was in fact your line of argument, then I'd be happy to discuss it.

Here's why I give such great import to reason: Reason corresponds seamlessly to and is descriptive of what we perceive to be reality. In other words, it makes sense of our world and yields results (like every scientific advancement); it is effectual. But more fundamentally, we all necessarily assume the validity of reason; in fact, we have to for intelligibility's sake. Consider your implied argument: Reason cannot itself be justified with reason, because that would be circular and fallacious--you cannot assume what you are trying to prove. And I agree. But here's my point: Any valid argument against reason itself employs reason! So paradoxically, the strongest arguments against reason's validity are simultaneously the greatest evidences of the validity of reasoning. This is hard to articulate, so I'd be happy to clarify if need be.

However, if you're making the transcendental argument, then your argument isn't so much against reason I suppose, just atheistic defenses of it. Because Christian presuppositionalists argue that reason is valid, but only because God vouches for its validity.

[runner4jesus]

Getting back to the Word of God. No man can truly relate, understand or even receive what God has done in creation according to the Word of God; unless the Spirit of God reveals this to him. Trying to understand this truth with our intellect and human reasoning will only lead to a dead end. Every Word of God has to be spiritually discerned through the Holy Ghost, not with our fleshly, human understanding.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh (captures) the wise in their own craftiness.

And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. (empty, worthless) I Corinthians 3:19-20

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

When men believe the LIE of evolution or any other false way; they are greatly deceived by the god of this world, a deceiver from the beginning; Satan. Only God can deliver us from the deception that is on every hand today. He delivered me from one of the biggest lies; that of Roman Catholicism; he can deliver you from this great deception perpetrated by the devil.

The saddest thing about those who are lost to this lie of evolution, is the fact they are all going to stand before the creator that made them one day and give an account; only to be condemned to hell because they would not receive the truth of the Word of God. That, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

We all have to make that choice to believe the Word of God or believe what Satan has concocted to keep souls bound in this lie created by him.
I pray God will open your eyes one day in Jesus name and you will be loosed from the power of darkness; just as he delivered me. I also pray in Jesus name that those on this board who you are trying to convince to your way of thinking will not be persuaded one ioda; that they will be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. It's only God who will keep us from deception, not we ourselves. And I stand on the victory in the blood of Jesus Christ, that God will keep us all from the flood gates of deception that is all around us.

God's promise to those who are faithful to his word. Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

[jonadams]

While I do sincerely appreciate your concern for my salvation, I was hoping for a discussion, not a sermon. Most of my arguments--in this thread and the one on the disparities among the resurrection accounts--have been left unanswered.

[runner4jesus]

Hello Jon: Your questions have been thoroughly answered; but not with the answers you probably want to hear. Answers have been given according to a biblical perspective and in truth. God has to open your eyes to the truth of the Word of God, men cannot.

[kayaker4theking]

Jon, Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you. Life has been a little crazy lately. What runner says is true that only God can open your eyes. Like I've said before, if you are honestly looking for THE TRUTH, I'm sure that you will eventually turn to God. Jesus said He was the way, the truth, and the life. (John 14:6) As for reason, I do believe in it, or else I wouldn't be trying to reason with you. However, reason only makes sense with God. I believe that God-given reason is in all of us because we are made in His image. Without God, reason itself has no traction. For example, when you said "Reason corresponds seamlessly to and is descriptive of what we perceive to be reality." If there is nothing higher, then the way I perceive my reality and the way you perceive yours can be totally different and neither one is wrong. You are correct in that reason does give us results like scientific advancements. So to use science...when a chemical reaction happens in a lab, it is not true or false, it just is. It is our reason that makes conclusions about that. Now, to come back around, our own reason is in our mind, if there is nothing higher, then my reasoning is just my brain chemicals reacting to stimulus and so is yours in which case neither of these reactions can be said to be right or wrong. So if there is nothing higher (God) then our differences are just chemical and you have no basis to say that my chemicals that say there's a God are any more wrong than yours that say there isn't one. I know that this is a little confusing (especially with the way I word things), but again, if you need me to clarify, feel free to ask and I will and I will do the same with you if I am unsure about anything you say.

Paul

[jonadams]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Paul. I'm glad that you kept your appeals to faith at a minimum.

As I've noted earlier, your argument is essentially the transcendental argument for God's existence (TAG).

a) Recognize that TAG really isn't an argument for God's existence. It is merely an argument against reason's existence without God. So at best, even if the argument is valid, it does not establish the existence of God.

b) If you don't buy the first objection and believe that TAG is in fact an argument for God's existence, it is not necessarily an argument for the Christian God's existence. TAG could be co-opted and employed by Muslims, Mormons, Jews, etc.

c) Your argument assumes that order (reason) cannot arise out of disorder (nature); this to me is not self-evident. Could you further substantiate your argument, here?

d) Philosopher Michael Martin has proposed the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG). His argument is that logic is incompatible with Christianity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_non-existence_of_God#Criticisms_re_Science

I am not familiar enough with his argument to subscribe to it; I mention it to demonstrate there is considerable philosophical debate over TAG.

[runner4jesus]

Here's an excellent link from Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. There are many teaching videos/audio also, on many subjects from the Word of God, mostly on creation. This is a good resource. Click on the link below and then you will see the list.

www.youngearth.org/audio_video.htm

CHECK THEM OUT, THEY'RE GREAT!