Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Barbarian]

Phillip Johnson identified the bait and switch tactic. Some will start with the observable, testable and repeatable such as peppered moth, the bait. And then switch to the unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable such as a common ancestor.

It's not only testable; it's been tested. Darwin's theory predicted a common ancestor for all living things on Earth. So the theory explained why living things fit neatly into a bush, in a nested hierarchy that is only found in cases of common descent. But then, when gene and DNA were discovered, scientists could test that theory again, by seeing if that bush actually matched up common descent in DNA. It did, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. And since we can check it by analyzing DNA from organisms of known descent, we know it works.

(Johnson, BTW, has admitted that transitionals like Archaeopteryx are evidence for common descent; he just says it's "not very good evidence.")

Philip Johnson also identified the difference between science such as the theory of evolution, and philosophy such as Darwinisn, naturalism, materialism.

Johnson is a trained lawyer, and he knows that one way to win is to somehow connect that which one argues against, with something unrelated to it. Darwinian theory is a science, since it is based on evidence, and has been tested and verified.

Some will do the bait and switch with the theory to support their philosophy, but then fend off any criticism of their philosophy by claiming it to be an attack on the theory or science or just reason in general. I saw him speak 10 years ago and he really opened my eyes to what was happening.

Johnson admits that he's motivated by his rather unconventional religious beliefs, not science. I've always thought it odd that people who fear science will undermine their religion or philosophy, attack it by pretending it's a religion or philosophy.

Here's a way to test whether it's science or not:
Ask a scientist why she accepts evolution. If she says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If she starts talking about evidence, it's a science.

 

[Vaccine]

It's not only testable; it's been tested. Darwin's theory predicted a common ancestor for all living things on Earth. So the theory explained why living things fit neatly into a bush, in a nested hierarchy that is only found in cases of common descent. But then, when gene and DNA were discovered, scientists could test that theory again, by seeing if that bush actually matched up common descent in DNA. It did, to an astonishing degree of accuracy. And since we can check it by analyzing DNA from organisms of known descent, we know it works.

(Johnson, BTW, has admitted that transitionals like Archaeopteryx are evidence for common descent; he just says it's "not very good evidence.")

Common descent is an inference based on OTHER evidence. Common descent is not empirically testable because nobody can go back in time and observe it happening..
There are several examples of species that don't fit into nested hierarchy: Platypus- a mammal that lays eggs, Lungfish a fish with lung(s), Pangolins- mammals with scales, Spotted Salamanders capable of photosynthesis.
From what I've read about DNA, it all depends on how we look at the DNA and genes whether it lines up with common ancestry or not. An objective scientist would have to say DNA is inconclusive.

Johnson is a trained lawyer, and he knows that one way to win is to somehow connect that which one argues against, with something unrelated to it. Darwinian theory is a science, since it is based on evidence, and has been tested and verified.

Philip Johnson is asking what does Darwin's theory of evolution, the observation that species adapt and change to their environment, have to do with common descent, the inference those small variations amount to speciation?

Here's a way to test whether it's science or not:
Ask a scientist why she accepts evolution. If she says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If she starts talking about evidence, it's a science.

I agree with that. I just think empirical evidence and inferences are two different things.

Why would you say Philip Johnson's beliefs are unconventional?

 

[turnorburn]

Great title for a thread..:yes

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

tob

 

[Nathanael Chong]

Well, I just find it hard to believe that all the complex things in nature, from the delicateness of the universe to the cell which has more complicated characteristics than the fastest computer ever built, have evolved by unguided natural conditions.
By the way, let's not get all angry over this topic. Anger and frustration cloud our ability to think clearly and reasonably. Cheers.

 

[Barbarian]

Common descent is an inference based on OTHER evidence.

So is Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go stepping off any high places.

Common descent is not empirically testable

It's not only testable, it's been tested. For example, the family tree first prepared by Linnaeus (who didn't even think about evolution, and was therefore puzzled when other things like minerals couldn't be so organized) has been tested by checking for fossil transitionals, by genetic analysis, and so on. Verified each time. One of the things people often miss, is that the fact of transitional forms is not nearly as convincing as the absence of such forms, where the theory doesn't predict them.

because nobody can go back in time and observe it happening..

If it were true that you couldn't learn about anything you hadn't directly observed, there would be no forensics, no geology, no fire investigations. That excuse won't fly.

There are several examples of species that don't fit into nested hierarchy:

Well, let's take a look...

Platypus- a mammal that lays eggs,

Reptilian eggs, not avian ones. It also has a reptilian skeleton in many respects, a reptilian cloaca, and so on. But mammals had long been known to have evolved from reptiles, so a transitional form between mammals and reptiles is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Lungfish a fish with lung(s)

Many fish have lungs. In many more of them, the lungs have evolved into mere bladders to control buoyancy. But of course, since tetrapods evolved from fish, it's not surprising that they have lungs.

Pangolins- mammals with scales

Rodents have scales on their tails, and so on. Since hair and scales have quite similar composition and genes, this isn't surprising.

More later...(added)

Spotted Salamanders capable of photosynthesis.

They aren't. They merely have photosynthetic algae embedded in their skin. It turns out that the algae seem to use their wastes and provide oxygen in the skin (salamanders get much or all of their oxygen through the skin). Just symbiosis. And the evolution of even endosymbiosis has been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that?

From what I've read about DNA, it all depends on how we look at the DNA and genes whether it lines up with common ancestry or not.

Nope. Show me any world-class geneticist who denies that DNA is evidence for common descent.

An objective scientist would have to say DNA is inconclusive.

Show me one that says it is, who doesn't have a religious objection to common descent.

 

[Vaccine]

Here's a way to test whether it's science or not:
Ask a scientist why she accepts evolution. If she says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If she starts talking about evidence, it's a science.

Because some scientist says:
"mammals had long been known to evolve from reptiles"
"a transitional form between mammals and reptiles is a prediction of evolutionary theory."
"Lungs have evolved into mere bladders"
"Tetrapods evolved from fish"
That is not evidence, it is a belief. None of that is known, therefore is pseudo science. Technically, since Darwinism has no official rules, ceremonies, or god to worship it isn't religion. However, it is a set of beliefs and is therefore a philosophy which is not without consequence. If one believes mammals evolved from reptiles, why is killing or rape wrong for humans but not snakes? If all we are is just a chunk of matter in the universe with a conscience, why are pedophiles wrong? As soon as someone says pedophiles are wrong they imply they know what proper behavior is. People have to invoke a set of beliefs, not empirical evidence, to justify that position. Darwinism is in the same realm as Christianity in this respect, but all things considered Christianity Is much better.

 

[Barbarian]

Because some scientist says:
"mammals had long been known to evolve from reptiles"

No. Because there is abundant evidence for the evolution of mammals from reptiles. Would you like to learn about some of it?

"a transitional form between mammals and reptiles is a prediction of evolutionary theory."

Yep. It was probably a surprise to learn that platypuses are transitional between reptiles and mammals. Just what the theory predicted. Egg-laying, reptilian skeletal features, a cloaca, and more.

"Lungs have evolved into mere bladders"

In fish. Some of them still use the swim bladder as a gas exchange organ. And we can find all sorts transitional forms of primitive lungs still in existence in living fish. Would you like to see that?

Barbarian observes:
"Tetrapods evolved from fish"

That is not evidence, it is a belief.

In the sense of "because genetic, anatomical, embyrologica, and fossil evidence indicates so, scientists believe that tetrapods evolved from fish."

None of that is known,

As surely as gravity. In fact, better than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know for sure why gravity works.

therefore is pseudo science.

Science works by inferences from evidence. As you just learned, nothing is more scientific than these conclusions.

Technically, since Darwinism has no official rules, ceremonies, or god to worship it isn't religion.

No, that's wrong. It's not a religion, because it's based on evidence and inferences from that evidence.

However, it is a set of beliefs and is therefore a philosophy

Nope. Philosophy is not about science. Science, as you might know, is about inferences from evidence. I just showed you some examples.

If one believes mammals evolved from reptiles, why is killing or rape wrong for humans but not snakes?

Because, for one thing, we aren't merely animals. God used nature to make our bodies, but our souls are given directly by Him. We know good and evil, and snakes do not. So they are innocent of the harm they do.

If all we are is just a chunk of matter in the universe with a conscience,

Odd way to paint God's most beloved creation. He chose to use nature to make our physical selves. Why is that so offensive to you?

why are pedophiles wrong?

I find it very troubling that someone might think pedophilia would be OK if evolution is a fact. Very, very troubling. I doubt that is what you really mean, though.

As soon as someone says pedophiles are wrong they imply they know what proper behavior is. People have to invoke a set of beliefs, not empirical evidence, to justify that position. Darwinism is in the same realm as Christianity in this respect, but all things considered Christianity Is much better.

Given that you've been reminded that what is true about nature is not a guide to human conduct, I'm puzzled as to what you're saying here. From the beginning, Darwin pointed out that nature is not what we are compelled to follow.

 

[Barbarian]

Philip Johnson is asking what does Darwin's theory of evolution, the observation that species adapt and change to their environment, have to do with common descent, the inference those small variations amount to speciation?

Maybe he is. But of course, he's dead wrong. Speciation has been directly observed; Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation research have admitted speciation is a fact. The ICR endorsed a study that claimed new species, genera, and even families evolve.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, I just find it hard to believe that all the complex things in nature, from the delicateness of the universe to the cell which has more complicated characteristics than the fastest computer ever built, have evolved by unguided natural conditions.

I'd find it hard to believe, too. But of course, natural selection is not random; it directs evolution toward greater fitness over time.

 

[Vaccine]

So is Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go stepping off any high places.

Newton's physics were base on observable, testable, and repeatable experiments. Common ancestry is not based on empirical evidence, it is an inference. Many consider it strong evidence, but a common designer explains the evidence just as well.

They aren't. They merely have photosynthetic algae embedded in their skin. It turns out that the algae seem to use their wastes and provide oxygen in the skin (salamanders get much or all of their oxygen through the skin). Just symbiosis. And the evolution of even endosymbiosis has been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that?

It was thought the algae was on their skin in a symbiotic relationship but turns out the is algae is inside the cell. Nested hierarchy is a weak and outdated.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100730/full/news.2010.384.html[url]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100730/full/news.2010.384.html[/URL]

Nope. Show me any world-class geneticist who denies that DNA is evidence for common descent.

In the other thread I showed you where they did an experiment with 200 genes and could not make a phylogeny tree that made any sense.
[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Here is an article talking about "networks" replacing a tree. Networks clouds common descent and actually supports special creation where there would be many trees.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

Here's article that perfectly explains what I mean about by it all depends on how one looks at the evidence:
"Our results suggest that data sets consisting of single or a small number of concatenated genes have a significant probability of supporting conflicting topologies. By contrast, analyses of the entire data set of concatenated genes yielded a single, fully resolved species tree with maximum support."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02053.html

"One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes."
If we look at the evidence on way we certainly do not see common descent, looked at another way we do see it. If someone approaches the evidence with Darwin's ruler to pick or choose which evidence to accept or reject, that isn't science. An objective scientist would go where the evidence leads and have to say DNA is inconclusive. They say it may take 20 years but trees will be replaced by networks.[/URL]

 

[Vaccine]

Because, for one thing, we aren't merely animals.

Evolutionary biologists say we're hairless apes. IDer's are the ones saying otherwise.

God used nature to make our bodies, but our souls are given directly by Him. We know good and evil, and snakes do not. So they are innocent of the harm they do.

Intelligent design theory is compatible with the concept of a soul. Darwinism explains a souls as imagination, the byproduct of a consciousness.
"A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicability is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality (but see Dennett 1991, 430, for immortality of a naturalistic consciousness). An examination of this point alone could fill a book. However, suffice it to say: (2)what we want has no bearing on what really is."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html

Odd way to paint God's most beloved creation. He chose to use nature to make our physical selves. Why is that so offensive to you?

It's just a logical conclusion if nature made humans and rocks, smashing one would be no different than smashing the other. What an odd idea nature has the power to create life.
Since it was God, not nature, that made humans we are God's most beloved creation.

I find it very troubling that someone might think pedophilia would be OK if evolution is a fact. Very, very troubling. I doubt that is what you really mean, though.

I apologize for being crude. I'm just making the point if psychologists and neurologists can explain behavior exclusively by natural causes, it proves people like that are not responsible for their actions. We can go on about our religious beliefs and how wrong they are, but that's just a philosophy, a belief. ID is challenging this bad science on it's own ground.
"If the brain’s decision nodes were constrained by natural law, our decisions would not be real. If our choices were constrained by chance or necessity, we should stop holding engineers responsible for building collapses, and stop holding criminals responsible for their behavior. Real selection/choice contingency not only predates the existence of human metaphor and heuristic use of analogy, it produced human mentation." David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “More than Metaphor: Genomes Are Objective Sign Systems,” Journal of BioSemiotics, Vol. 1(2):253-267 (2006).

Given that you've been reminded that what is true about nature is not a guide to human conduct, I'm puzzled as to what you're saying here. From the beginning, Darwin pointed out that nature is not what we are compelled to follow.

I'm just pointing out when science tells people they are merely animals, it is not without consequences.

 

[Barbarian]

(The "Just a Theory" excuse, again)

Barbarian chuckles:
So is Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go stepping off any high places. Actually, evolution is better established than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure about why gravity works.

Newton's physics were base on observable, testable, and repeatable experiments.

As you learned, so is common descent, which has been tested and predictions confirmed by a number of diverse and independent methods.

Common ancestry is not based on empirical evidence,

I just showed you some of the empirical evidence. No point in denying it. Even the inventor of the ID faith, Philip Johnson, admits that transitional forms like Archaeopteryx are evidence for evolution. And of course, as you learned, one of the most compelling facts for evolution is that transitionals only occur where the theory predicts them to be.

When DNA was discovered, and shown to be a way to check common ancestry, it confirmed the same family tree for living things on Earth that was first discovered by Linnaeus on anatomical data.

Many consider it strong evidence, but a common designer explains the evidence just as well.

Nope. "Common designer" completely falls apart, because it can't explain homologies, suboptimal or vestigial structures,(these last two are not the same thing) or the genetic or transitional evidence.

Barbarian observes:
They aren't. They merely have photosynthetic algae embedded in their skin. It turns out that the algae seem to use their wastes and provide oxygen in the skin (salamanders get much or all of their oxygen through the skin). Just symbiosis. And the evolution of even endosymbiosis has been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that?

It was thought the algae was on their skin in a symbiotic relationship but turns out the is algae is inside the cell.

We've already directly observed the evolution of endosymbiosis. Not only have scientists discovered that our mitochondria (and the chloroplasts of plants) are endosymbionts with their own, bacterial, DNA, but we've seen the process evolve in a species of amoeba:

Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae


Kwang W. Jeon

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

Abstract
The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Nested hierarchy is a weak and outdated.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100730/full/news.2010.384.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100730/full/news.2010.384.html


Barbarian suggests:

Nope. And the source you cited doesn't support your claim. Show me any world-class geneticist who denies that DNA is evidence for common descent.

(apparently unable to find one)

No surprise there.

"One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes."

No one is surprised by that. There is occasional lateral gene transfer by viruses, etc. And mutation is a stochiastic process, which means that the more genes you sample, the more accurate the results will be. That's why scientists are more impressed by analyses using large numbers of genes.

If we look at the evidence on way we certainly do not see common descent

I suggested you might present even one world-class geneticist who doubts that DNA shows common descent, and you declined to do so. Here's your chance again. Show us even one.

​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Because, for one thing, we aren't merely animals.

Evolutionary biologists say we're hairless apes.

No. We have as many hairs as other apes. Ours is just mostly very fine and hard to see. And of course, biologists don't say were are only apes. We are animals like other animals, but for our immortal soul, given directly by God.

Barbarian obeserves:
God used nature to make our bodies, but our souls are given directly by Him. We know good and evil, and snakes do not. So they are innocent of the harm they do.

Intelligent design theory is compatible with the concept of a soul.

So is shamanism, and Satanism. I don't see the point.

Darwinism explains a souls as imagination

Get a copy the origin of species, and show us where it says that. Having read it a few times, I'm inclined to think someone lied to you about that, especially since Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

 

[Tristan]

I don't believe in random mutation as evolution, but genes turning on and off in response to the environment makes sense to me. God is still the creator at the very beginning. I'm also not a proponent of intelligent design as it stands. In fact it wouldn't bother me if God was merely the creator at the beginning (the Big Bang *gasp*). Regardless of how it is believed, what matters to me is that God is the ultimate creator. The mechanism he uses is up to him.

A lot of nonbelievers support evolution, but that doesn't mean it's incompatible with Christianity. I'm a Christian and I believe God was the creator and the he used evolution to create all things on Earth.

 

[turnorburn]

Near as i can figure evolutionary biologists believe that we are evolving do they also believe that our creator is evolving?

tob

*edit:spelling

 

[Free]

Near as i can figure evolutionary biologists believe that we are evolving do they also believe that our creator is evolving?

tob

That is akin to atheists asking, "Who created God?" Personally I don't see why any theistic evolutionary biologist would hold such a belief--apart from a pantheist or panentheist--since they likely don't believe He evolved along with creation in the past. Only created things would have evolved and be evolving, not the Creator himself.

 

[turnorburn]

Are you an evolutionary biologist, surely they must have an opinion.

tob

*edit: "Evolution Is Religion Not Science" thus the question

 

[Barbarian]

Near as i can figure evolutionary biologists believe that we are evolving

Demonstrably so. For example, TIbetans have a number of high-altitude adaptations that have evolved in the last few thousand years, not found in the Chinese, from which they came.

do they also believe that our creator is evolving?

Evolution is a natural process, part of the physical universe God created. Do you think God is a creature? C'mon.

 

[turnorburn]

How does Jesus fit into evolution, are you saying he is a part of the evolutionary process?

tob

*edit: spelling

 

[Barbarian]

How does Jesus fit into evolution

The Inventor. It's His creation, after all.

are you saying he is a part of the evolutionary process?

Just noting that without God, there would be no evolutionary process.

No offense to those who don't think that Jesus is wholly man and wholly God. But that's what I believe. He is the Creator, one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. But He is also man, a man who was subject to fear and pain, hunger and thirst, and capable of sin. (otherwise His temptation by Satan is meaningless)