Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

I assume that in all of your "questions" you expect me to answer the evolutionist "consensus" on such questions. In which case, I am fully prepared to tell you what evolutionists think, having been involved in the debate for a bit. Obviously, some of your questions are silly:"2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"Hmmm... well I suppose I deserve a bump on my head if I said "Yes"? And what exactly would be the determining factor on whether or not evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Why, the opinion of evolutionary scientists! Of course, their view is superior to that of the inbred heathen creation "scientists"."3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?"The real question is, "If the origin of life by process of chemical evolution was well supported by the facts, would the origin of life be considered a part of evolution?""Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself."Implying that the extreme minority of creation scientists who have innacurate degrees is common amongst creationists is quite dishonest.Just for fun, I think I'd like to make a list of my own.Cobra's Questions for Evolutionists:1. Does your argument include pointless ad hominem attacks against creation scientists?2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?3. Does your argument imply that most creation scientists have bogus credentials?4. Does your argument include mean-spirited generalizations in an attempt to portray creation scientists as incompetent and liers?5. Do you put quotations around creation "scientists"?If you answer "Yes" to any of the previous, please bang your head against a wall.

Hello Percipient. Just to let you know, I respect your opinion greatly as it seems to me that your are fairly unbiased. However, I think you have unfortunately been misled by evolutionary scientists in regards to the creationist's stance on the 2LOT.First, I would like to clarify my position. I am not convinced either way whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT. However, I am convinced that the idea of an atheistic cosmos is contradictory to the 2LOT (if the universe isn't a closed system, I don't know what is!)"I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)."Yes... but these physicists and chemists and such are most likely almost to a person evolutionists. My point is, whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT is a subject FOR debate, not a subject that must be determined BEFORE debate."This is because Creationists take their arguments not to scientists but to boards of education and state legislatures and public debates and presentations to lay audiences."I'd just like to point out that, at debates, there is an evolutionist there to point out such boneheaded claims."Over time they've discovered this argument really works with people unfamiliar with science. This argument's got legs!! This gives the 2LOT claim a lot appeal for Creation scientists, because they take their message almost exclusively to the laity rather than to scientists."I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law."The Creationist 2LOT claim is usually couched in terms designed to be understood by laypeople, but in these forms it is usually a misstatement. Creationists usually explain 2LOT as saying that the universe is running down, or that complexity cannot increase, or that higher life forms can't develop from lower. In reality it says nothing like this."Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly."While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system."I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems."But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system."Oh believe me, I've heard this quite a bit in the literature I've read, so I know."It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution."Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place."Because the earth is not a closed system, 2LOT arguments cannot be used to place limits upon it."I don't think this is entirely true, due to the reasons described above."When they advance this argument, leading Creationists are actually disrespecting audiences who have put trust in them. The reality is that not only is the Creationist 2LOT argument wrong in a scientific sense, it's wrong even in a Creationist framework. That's because all Creationists concede that microevolution happens. Microevolution can't be denied, since animal breeders of all stripes take advantage of it all the time, and bacteriology and virology show us that mutations are an undeniable fact. Well, guess what? If one microevolutionary step is okay with 2LOT, then two microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT, as are three steps, four steps, and so forth. Even a million microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT."True, but creationists deny that microevolution extended equals macroevolution, and indeed even evolutionists seem to argue this point."Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place."The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.

"I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution."Yes, it is my opinion that evolutionary scientists would have no difficulty with including abiogenesis in their theory if in fact abiogenesis was supported by empirical facts and/or observations."But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions."I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science."This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore."You mean kinda like the Second Law? "Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science."True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science."The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?

"This is so obviously true I don't know why you're raising it. Redstang and Jet are almost wholly enamored of this approach, despite people taking the trouble to actually root out the original text in which many of the quotes appeared to show how they were taken out of context."I've got no problem with people claiming that quotes are out of context as long as they provide documentation, as the members of this board often do. (I wasn't really referring to this board in this statement)"Faithful Christians reading these quotes should ask themselves why, if evolutionary scientists believe evolution is seriously flawed or even blatantly wrong, that evolution hasn't long since slunk away into the dustbin of scientific history."Well, a number of political/emotional/religous factors could be involved. And the quotes aren't generally quotes saying that evolution is wrong, but they give quotes in which the author suggests that a particular portion of evolutionary theory is not supported by the evidence, or a certain mechanism for evolution is not supported by the evidence."Why would an evolutionary scientist dedicate his professional life to something he doesn't believe? Does this make any kind of sense to anyone?"Not to me, and that's why I know that the quoted scientists don't believe the theory is bankrupt, they just believe that a certain mechanism/prospect of evolution is not supported by the evidence."Look at it another way. What if a scientist were to quote a Creationist, say Wells for example, saying that ID is insufficiently supported by the evidence. Would you believe it? Would it make sense to you that Wells would be uttering a severe criticism of the
very science he has worked so hard to develop?"Like I said before, the quotes I see generally seem to be critiquing a certain mechanism/prospect of evolutionary theory."Well, then, why would you believe quotes of evolutionists tearing down their own science?"The quotes don't generally seem to be evolutionists tearing down their own science, but rather suggesting that a particular prospect/mechanism of evolution is not suppported by the evidence."By the way, there are a couple reasons you'll never see those on the side of evolution using this approach. First, they understand it is dishonest."I don't want to play nanny-nanny-boo-boo, but I would just like to point out that not all evolutionists are the model of honest individuals."Second, they realize the evidence should speak for itself, that just offering quotes is the fallacy of argument from authority."The creationists are trying to show that the evidence speaks for itself. They generally first make a claim, then they follow up with experts in the area that agree with them. Do you think anyone would believe creation scientists if they simply said "Transitional forms for all major forms of fish are entirely lacking"?

"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking."I thought that this was the main flaw in Dawkins' argument (there was a goal).

"No."Good."Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence."It is sometimes claimed without evidence."Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact."I'd certainly be interested in these proposed "facts"."See above."See above. I want the supposed conclusive evidence that shows such accusations are valid."Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations."Au contraire, it is not misleading at all to call creation scientists just that, given that many of them have postgraduate degrees from prominent universities. Even if Creation SCIENCE is not scientific, that does not detract from the fact that said scientists are just whay they claim to be."I do, everytime I argue with a creationist
(Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)"It's actually a pretty good joke.

I am going to have to take some more time before I comment on the 2LOT, but for now I would like to address the question dealing with the nature of science.From: Quetzal
"I don't agree, here, if by "evolutionary scientists" you mean biologists. Abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry, nothing more."Well, what I really mean is "big-time" evolutionists: Gould, Wilson, etc.From: Quetzal
"This is kind of a non-sequitur. In addition, "materialistic naturalism" seems to be redundant. Is there "non-material or supernatural naturalism"? I think you're confusing the empiricism of the scientific method with "philosophical naturalism", which is a philisophical position stating that "nothing exists outside of nature". Science merely states that science isn't capable of measuring or detecting anything outside of nature - not that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is a very crucial distinction. "Scientism" and "philosphical naturalism" are both subsets of an essentially atheistic worldview. Science itself does not adhere to either position - theist or atheist. Science is by definition agnostic, I guess."Alright, I suppose, but I still think an important distinction needs to be made between operational and origin science.From: Quetzal
"First off, what is "operational science"? I've never heard that term before."Present day measurement: Chemistry, Physics, etc.From: Quetzal
"Secondly, if you DON'T place the restriction that "science deals with nature only" on origins science, you have removed the entire idea from the realms of science, and placed it firmly into theology."Well, you must place a distinction between supernatural and naturalism when dealing with present-day stuff, which is why one shouldn't suppose that God interferes every time there is a volcanic eruption. See below for what your scientific philosophy could lead to.From: Quetzal
"Simply put: you cannot use your conclusion ("creation happened") as proof of your postulate ("a creator exists")."I see what you're getting at, but it does not seem to me that this is the position I take. I am saying that the world today is highly likely to have come about by acts of a Designer, due to complexity of nature, cells, etc.From: Quetzal
"I would very much like to hear your explanation how SETI (a technological search for signs of extra-terrestrial technology) has anything to do with a supernatural creator."SETI is searching for signs of intelligent design in radio waves without the slightest clue as to what the creator of the wave may be like and without any real evidence that the creator even exists.From: Percipient
"I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution."Basically.From: Percipient
"But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions."This is not a very fair claim. Suppose that the geological column contained every type of fossil in every single layer. Suppose that single cells don't exist, only multicellular organisms are around. Should we continue to stretch silly naturalistic conjectures to come up with the most unlikely of hypothesises, or should we acknowledge that the facts support creation? Your scientific philosophy is terrible, it basically means that in the above scenario, there would be the "scientific" reality, which must be upheld by all scientists, and then there is the "real" reality, in which everyone ACTUALLY knows Creation is true but simply can't say that in scientific journals because it is not "scientific." I suppose that's fine with me, you can continue to support the "scientific" reality of abiogenesis, while I will believe in the "real" reality of Creation. Whatever happened to science as defined by an objective search for the truth?From: Percipient
"This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore. Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science."Like mentioned previously, I suppose creationists generally prefer searching for the "real" reality, rather than the "scientific" reality. However, I wonder if Francis Bacon would support your definition of science?From: Percipient
"The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."Wait a second, you just said that "science" does not acknowledge such supernatural forces. And it is impposible to gather and prevent such "evidence", after all, "evidence" for the supernatural is surely just phenomenon in which "science" has not explained as of yet.