Nice try. A for effort. F for content.
You can't compare apples and oranges and come up with a valid conclusion. This is utter foolishness and hardly even worth wasting time on except that Mammuthus seems to actually believe his argument is valid.
My answer to this foolishness is that Mammuthus is using the word science in two different ways and expecting us foolish people to fall for his trick.
The birth of a child is scientific truth that has been first of all seen millions of times over, thoroughly researched, and that research has been repeatedly demonstrated in front of all of our eyes. This truth has been unequivocally established by research and experimentations using Normal or Operational science. Operational Science is science which deals with REPEATABLE OBSERVABLE processes in the PRESENT.
Mammethus would like to have his silly people believe that Creationists are so anti-science that they refuse to accept this type of scientific truth that has been repeatedly tested and observed in the lab. This is of course a bunch of hooey. ( I like that word.)
What kind of fools does he take his readers for? I hope you have seen through his ploy. It is an insult to our intelligence.
No true creationist would deny the validity of Normal Operational science. This kind of science has helped us better understand our world and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, curing of diseases, and even to putting men on the moon. Creationists have been very involved and made great contributions in this type of science since science began. In fact, precisely because they believe in a God who designed the Universe with order and design, they are better equipped to look for that order(scientific laws) and design in things. The proof of that is that so many great scientists of the past were Christians and Creationists.
However, when it comes to evolution, we are not talking about Normal Operational Science. Evolution fits under what is better referred to as Origins Science or historical science, which cannot be repeated and tested and observed. Origins science or historical science, helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. We need to make a distinction here between the two or we'll end up believing silly arguments like what Mammethus is trying to snow us with.
When we come to Origins science, to evolution, we enter the realm of speculation. No one was there to actually observe what happened as Mammethus seems to infer from the kind of comparison he is making. There is no way around that fact. The past in that sense is unobservable and unrepeatable. Origins science has more to do with the law of cause and effect Eeverything that has a beginning has a cause and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. Where is the scientific error in that way of thinking?) But, in the naturalistic worldview, there is no room for a material intelligent designer, so all that is left for the materialist is to appeal to a non-material designer for life and try and make the facts fit the theory.
Of course, Creationists will invoke the miraculous here because of our worldview, but that is no different from the irrational adherance to the materialistic philosophy of life that agnostics, atheists, materialists, etc. do.
We creationists don't believe that the laws that govern the universe are necessarily the same laws that made the universe, but evolutionists assume this to be the case. This is another a priori assumption that both sides make.
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati illustrates this point in the following example:
"The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as (what Mammethus is saying) the following by Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):
"Evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton."
However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.
To explain further: THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE OPERATION OF A COMPUTER ARE NOT THOSE THAT MADE THE COMPUTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Lerner's(Mammethus's) anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer's workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead.
Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.
CONVERSELY, THE FACT THAT THE CODING MACHINERY WORKS ACCORDING TO THE REPRODUCIBLE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY WERE SUFFICIENT TO BUILD SUCH A SYSTEM FROM A PRIMORDIAL SOUP."
No further comment.
Sorry, Mammethus, I allowed myself to get sidetracked from our other debate by this one. I'll be back.
Tokyojim
™ Version 4.2
