The consequences of "Evolution is false"

Schrafinator said:I must agree with that. As a believer in creation, I don't think that the weakness in evolution lies in the fact that natural selection is wrong. Like you said in an earlier post Shraf... the theory has led to enormous discoveries. It is plain to see that it is correct, at least in great part.I think the weakness in evolution lies in the fact that natural selection is not evolution.There is one argument that I have not seen refuted to my satisfaction by naturalists, that is the very argument that changed the mind of Dean Kenyon (professor of biology, Emeritus / S.F. State).Here is that argument:When DNA was first discovered, it was assumed (because of it's peerless molecular complexity) that it had evolved into the complex molecule that it is today, through random variations over time (natural selection). This is still the assumption of many today.We are told (over and over again) that the complexity of life we see today, came about from simple chemical or molecular compounds, that given time and chance evolved into more complex characters.That is a very reasonable (logical) theory. One certainly cannot logically envision life as we know it spontaneously appearing. Without a miracle of some kind, it is simply unreasonable to think so.The difficulty for the naturalist, is that before natural selection can begin to pass any changes in a simple life form, to the next generation (and give us the opprotunity for more complex organisms), we must, by necessity, start with an organism capable of self-replication.Now, since the processes of cell division are horrendously complex (not even fully understood), we need an organism that has all of the necessary organs in place to accomplish the feat.These organs are made predominantly of proteins and the chemical code for the proper time of their production, synthesis, and function are all stored in the DNA.So you can't use natural selection to explain DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain.For a self replicating cycle to be established, we first need a complex life form, and that life form is utterly dependent upon the most complex molecule in the known universe; DNA. So to continue believing in evolution, we must now accept the opposite of the very inference that made evolution reasonable. As it turns out, we must start with the most complex of all molecules (even in it's simplest known form).Now, there are several theories as to how natural selection may have occured without 'life' per se, but they are based on imagination, not on evidence. Natural selection is a fact... but it cannot explain the origin of DNA, and is in fact, dependant upon it. That is where evolution fails.Whether by Divine hand, or some unknown and alien natural mechanism, the appearence of DNA, is miraculous!Edited by Rob, : Signature

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

Shrafinator...I wrote:And you asked;

quote:

---

Why not?

---

The answer to your question is in the logic part of my statement. I mean, we can imagine anything. All things are possible, but all things are not equally probable.Can you logically believe that it is possible for a F22 Raptor to spontaneously appear?If not, it is even more improbable that life could appear spontaneously. Because although we tend to look at life as natural, what it is turning out to be is something so technologically advanced, that we cannot even really see it for what it is.It's like the movie 'I Robot'... We create these sophisticated robots and they take over the world. When in reality, androids are far more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for. But just like in the movie, we have taken over and decided that we know best.You know that I believe life was created nearly spontaneously, but by a creator, not by accident. You are free to believe otherwise if logic (is in your opinion), not a necessary component to a good explanation for life's appearence. If so, please do not try to explain with logic.Then I said:And you replied

quote:

---

No. What we need to start with is a molecule capable of self-replication...

---

We have not found one. The RNA World is assumed and accepted on faith as being the most likely candidate for a solution to the abiogenesis problem. But it is a bigger problem than we can imagine. That's why I said, (but in different terms) that the paradigm that Darwin postulated as a reasonable means for the theory of evolution has been turned on it's head.RNA and DNA are not alive. They do not do anything but float around like any other molecule suspended in solution. But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.But DNA by it's self is not alive. Nor is any other molecule. They are not even complex enough to call roadkill.Life is incredibly brittle and fragile. And even if we can imagine (and we certainly can!) that it could acheive this stunt you suggest. We must first take for granted that an entire universe of ecosystem is in place to make it possible. All by accident?I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.They wouldn't be the first to notice a problem for their 'life-style' if they are wrong. And any self respecting android will fight tooth and nail to deny that he is not the superior life form in this universe.Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!

You stated and then asked:No, it is my position regarding the competency and integrity of mankind!As Malcomb Muggeridge said, "the depravity of man is at once, the most emperically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact."Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

You asked:Of course not! Tremendous discoveries have been made along the way. But none of it confirms evolution. Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.Our understanding of many things has improved dramatically in the scientific sense, but man is essentially the same selfish savage that we see in ancient history.Even Aldous Huxley (the humanist) observed in Brave New World that:

quote:

---

"We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early success of science, but in a rather grisly morning after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimportant or actually deteriorated ends."

---

There is no evolution. There is at best stagnation, or at worst devolution. It is civilized man that has killed more of his fellow men that his ancestors.You also asked:No, it is my contention that mankind is incompetent at being mankind, because they do not know what it means to be.In fact, John Hopkins hosted a three day conference this last May, asking philosophers, scientists, psychologists, rationalists, existentialists, and even a token Christian the question, 'what does it mean to be human?'I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

You asked:On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer purpose.C.S. Lewis had a way of keeping this concept simple to grasp:

quote:

---

"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

---

quote:

---

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes... it cuts its own throat."

---

But do not be offended by any of this, because if there is no purpose, then I cannot be wrong because there is no offense as my perceptions are simply the result of DNA and environment. And in that case, there is no point in considering ourselves reasonable, sense reason is really nothing more than pure subjective drivle.If you think I am wrong, then you are imposing your morality onto me. But this notion of wrongness is very difficult to get rid of don't you think?

quote:

---

"All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt." (C.S.Lewis / the problem of pain)

---

quote:

---

"When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all." (C.S. Lewis / Mere Christianity)

---

Isaiah 1:18 - Show Context
"Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

I believe that their personal philosophy (worldview) is made of three fundamental components.1. Existential2. Emperical3. RationalMost people like to think of philosophy as only the third component. That way they can have a rational belief system that is incompatable with their emperical beliefs, irrespective of the existential consequences.

Kerusu, it is nice to at least sense (whether valid or not) that there are people capable of intelligent and respectful disagreement and debate. Now, enough of the love fest, let's get down to business!You said:Well, if you call evidence emperical, I say fine... But if it does not cohere (logically) with the other aspects of life (like the existential need for morality) then what do you do? Something is amiss in my opinion. Either the morality is errant, or the interpretation of the evidence is errant.If the interpretation of the evidence is errant, then we must ask, Is interpretation of evidence then really just subjective philosophy and worldview?' The answer must be yes. That is where I am coming from but I do not presume to persuade. It is not my idea and I claim no brilliance for adopting it (or did it adopt me?).If morality is errant, and the evidence is correctly interpreted (philosophically), then in the case of naturalism, there is no morality other than survival. In that case, bigoted absolutists like myself who will sacrifice this life for a belief in the next, must be eliminated for the sake of the survival of the race who is operating on the philosophy of this life being the only life.Furthermore, it is my understanding that the whole purpose of philosophy is to find unity in diversity. That is where the term University comes from. The Greeks talked of the four essences, water, earth, wind, and fire (a simplistic approach I know, but it gets the idea accross). Then someone asked, what is the 'fifth essence'; the quintessence.What is the unifying essence that brings all of these disciplines into a coherent framework? I'm not asking you, I am only stating the purpose of philosophy as I understand it.If that is true (and I believe so), then we cannot seperate our emperical interpretation from the rational and existential arenas. They must all cohere if we are to have an objective and systematized understanding of reality.And in the case of naturalism, once again we have a problem. The naturalist presupposes that there is no meaning, because he must infer that it is an accident, and that there is no 'external' meaning to make 'this' right and 'that' wrong. This gives man the power to design his own destiny.But there is a problem with believing that the universe has no meaning.I think C.S. Lewis explains this better than I could (which is to be expected):

quote:

---

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

---

Light and meaning are synonymous. That is why Jesus said,'I am the light of the world'.You may not agree, but I hope that my position is clear. But for it to be clear, 'reason' must be a real thing that sheds light on reality, or assumed reality.If you do not, then don't you have to use 'reason'(which is meaning) in order to tell me that there is no meaning?For the record, a favorite philosopher of mine has made the comment: Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNWR, : topic

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

Lol... How could you possibly miss the point? Is my language that foreign to you? (please don't answer that... all in jest).To answer your question... Not necessarily.My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).I know what it is like to face the mob, and it ain't pretty!

---

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."(C.S. Lewis / A Christian Reply to Professor Price)

Ok Shraf... you and the others have convinced me I must open up. Thought you might connect the dots yourself.You asked:Yes! By taking a single line in the fabric of the whole (in this case empericism), they have failed to give balance to the entire equation. This may or may not be intentional on an individual basis. It would be rather foolish of me to suggest that every scientist is knowingly perpetuating a falsehood. Especially since each of us is guilty of doing just that from time to time. We correct ourselves in proportion to our commitment to the truth. So it is not something limited to science. It is a human condition.It should not suprise us that an entire institution can be thoroughly deluded. We have our history books. It is not only possible... but is the consistent pattern of human institutions and civilizations. It is really what we should expect! I cannot help but wonder why you and others would be motivated to place such enormous faith in science. I dare not say what I think that motivation is, in defference to respect for you as an independant thinker. It is much better for you to realize it yourself. I have had my own 'look in the mirror' moments, so I really wish not to cast stones.What is even more interesting, is that if you take a man like Richard Dawkins, you see the epitome of my point. He believes with passion in the 'truth' of naturalism and as such, must logically conclude that morality is an illusion. I applaud him for his clear headedness irrespective of the fact that I disagree with his conclusion. If naturalism is true, then he is right!What stikes me even more, is that he recognizes that objective reality is 'sinless'. It cannot be otherwise. Therefore, anything that threatens 'reality' is bad. Hence his hatred of Theists like myself. However, he seems completely oblivious to the fact that by his own admission, morality is an illusion, yet he moralizes with vigor.It is contradictions like these that make plain, the disconnect between disciplinces. One cannot have an empirical (science) stance that denies the existence of morality, and also an existential (moral)stance that anything is wrong. To do so would violate the third primary discipline of logic. Evidence matters, Logic matters, and experience matters. Where do they all converge? They are all part of reality, so they must cohere (logically mix).When your emperical(science) position matches your existential (moral) position, and is furthermore in harmony with the logical coherence of the two, we then have a triune position that reflects all of objective reality in harmony.That's what we're all looking for. And we may not like it at first, but reality always points to the one place that it is, because it is the one thing we have absolutely no control over. Our only option is to seek it, or utterly reject it, whatever it turns out to be.

---

"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." (C.S. Lewis)

I can understand why you think that, but I have not always been a Bible Thumper In fact, I used to thump the same perception of reality (or it's potential) that you are thumping now. As you are now, so once was I. Don't forget that every affirmation is by default, a thumping. We cannot suggest that what we believe is right, without by implication sugesting that it's competing worldviews are wrong. That is why relativism is not relativism at all. There is no such thing as relativism. it is just another claim to truth.What I found at some point in my own thinking, is that if morality is a human concept, then my human concept is different than yours because we are unique creatures with different DNA and environmental programming. So then the question becomes, Which begs a further question... As I saw after some serious thinking, the idea that morality is a human conception becomes non-sensicle. It is either a reality that somehow logically coheres with the rest of the universe, or it does not exist at all.Speaking for myself, I cannot live with the latter.

Well either I haven't thought about it enough, or you haven't thought about it enough if that makes you feel better. Reason herself is the master. It matters little where in that stream we are. There is always more to learn. We either accept that, or we refuse to learn from anyone.As for the reasoning, what did I not explain?

No... The right conclusion was always right. After I asked it (Him) to help me, I could then see it. So, I found it not because I am superior, but quite the other way around. I found it because I admitted I was inferior.I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind but now I see.I gave in, and admitted that God was God.
C. S. Lewis Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." (C.S. Lewis)

More or less as well as any other human attempt to control themselves. The fact that such measures are needed is not very condusive to the portrait of scientists you have purchased.Peer review may not be the worst of all human attempts at honesty and integrity, but that is not the point. The point is that the better our attempts succeed, the more difficulty we would have in uncovering the sohistication of the new lie.It still boils down to the inmates running the assylum."Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
(C. S. Lewis)

---

"Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
(C. S. Lewis)

It's not a matter of incompetance really. It's a matter of having the courage to question such a massive institution at the expense of immediate reward. I mean... could that many people really be wrong?And they data may very well work in the confines of science and logic, but what happens when you bring in the moral side of the equation. There are many scientists as well as non-scientists, that consciously put aside the moral questions for obvious reasons (which are necessarily a conflict of interest).We must all be self-aware of bias. Being a scientist does not make one immune from bias, rather, in its extreme (in the name of science) we can become even more prone to bias. The reason I say this is, by -excluding- the moral equation (being biased against it (which is rare in its entirety. Nazi Germany is the quitessential example), we actually become monsters who put no limitation on anything. All in the name of science.There are simply some things we must be biased and prejudice about."All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt."
(C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain)As an aside... in your opinion Shraf, are we on topic?

Any scientist who overturned evolution would be immediatly become the biggest name in science.That is why the biggest name of all is JESUS!"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
(C. S. Lewis)