What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?

Mammathus,You comment, The scientific hypothesis for creation is that there is a Creator, and that all of the universe we can experience exists because this Creator put it there. It has meaning according to the purpose or whim of this Creator. "It is there for such or so reason in the mind of the Creator, or because it appealed to the subjective desires of the Creator." This is, in part, a psychological hypothesis, since it addresses the mind and emotions of the Creator.We postulate that this Creator is out there partly because we are living beings, and we create things. So, we suppose that there could be another living Being also creating things, even everything. We don't have much sensory information about this being, but earthworms don't have much sensory information about us, and we are out there in the earthworm's world. So, the Creator being could be out there, as well.But many postulate that this Creator is out there because of this extraordinary book called the Bible, which has a remarkable history as a document. The book presents itself as a message from the Creator to us. That makes sense. When we create things, we often make up a creator's manual telling how to deal with our creation. This book describes the psychology of the hypothetical Creator in some detail, and outlines several experiments anyone can do to falsify the reality of the Creator, if they are so inclined. For example, Malachi 3:10 says simply, as a message from the Creator, "prove Me now in this" outlining a titheing experiment that will either verify or falsify the Creator.But I like this experiment, because it uses strong inference, known to vastly improve the quality of science. If the creation theory is true, then the reproductive value of creation believing persons will be higher than that of evolutionists. This will be in part because believing the truth ought to improve one's adaptive fitness, the W of the population geneticists. Also, the primary mode of creation probably is artificial selection, where the Creator "blesses" with lots of children those who honor Him and give Him glory for His handiwork. If evolution is true, then creationists are wasting precious time and intellectual energy on something that isn't real, and are misguided. Then they ought to have a lower reproductive value than the evolutionists.In my many years of "evolution" research, it was the effect of behavior on reproductive value that was the gold standard.The data of course strongly support the theory of Creationism. The human sub-group with the highest W value are the "Plain People" the Amish and Mennonites, with over 9 children per couple, and 85% remaining in the community, having the same reproductive rate. Evolutionists do not seem to be replacing themselves, over-all. Nations with strong evolutionary teaching average barely, or less than, 2 children per female. The evolutionists, of course, ad hoc this finding by bringing up overpopulation theory, a theory which has yet to make a successful prediction, and which has been refuted by the data many times. Julian Simon's great book, "The Ultimate Resource" chronicles this very well. The creationists, of course, have predicted that evolutionists are so reproductively unsuccessful because they are deluded and deceived, in part by malignant spiritual beings also described in the Bible. This state of delusion is thus manifested as well in the claim by evolutionists that they are scientists. But, if they were scientists, they would have accepted the data on overpopulation theories, and changed their minds. However, instead they continue to defend the overpopulation theory by reason, which of course is not science.So, scientific testing of creation hypotheses is validated, while evolution is shown implausible, and evolutionists not scientists at all. Moreover, the creationist hypothesis, according to population genetics, will prevail by simply outbreeding the evolutionists. Evolution fits well into their model of the world as a sort of mental illness, that will soon be selected (artificially, of course) out of the species.

Soracilla,I have recently started judging forensic debates, and wonder where you learned to identify these logical errors. Or maybe, what you would recommend as a tidy source that could perhaps be developed into a rule book/handout that I could pass on to coaches and debaters and judges.Also, I wonder if I might entice you to look at Debates That Matter, a thread here, and consider volunteering as a judge for debates, where the participants agreed beforehand to accept your "refereeing," calls, and judgments. I may be the only member wanting such an "official" calling fouls and scores, giving penalties, and such like. But, maybe not. If there was such a refereed debate, I am sure it would attract as much healthy attention as refereed sports do, in comparison to the sand-lot playing that goes on all over the place.Stephen

Truthdetector,Man, the species we know today as Homo sapiens, has probably been on earth for about 6000 years. The most scientifically plausible description of this species identifies us as a symbiotic union of two life forms. One is called a "soul." This part weighs something less than an ounce, but is composed of some sort of dark matter, material (to satisfy the materialistic naturalists) that has mass but interacts with electro-magnetic material only through quantum effects and/or some other, as yet unknown, mechanism. The other life form in this symbiotic union is a primate. This union is modelled in purely electro-magnetic material by lichens, which probably exist to help us understand our nature. That is, the fungi part of lichens cannot use light (that is, electromagnetic light) to generate life or energy, but has to be saprophytic on dead or dying stuff. It functions to provide water and nutrients to a photosynthetic component, that "sees the light" and turns that light into life, if the fungal part provides water and nutrients. Thus, if our primate self bathes our dark matter selves in "the water of the word" and feeds the soul properly, the soul is able to take spiritual (dark energy) light, and turn it into electro-magnetic "life," that is, a lively primate. The soul-less human, called zombies, return to becoming "naked apes." They are able to survive for a while, feeding on dead stuff (TV, the theory of evolution, for example) but apparently are less able to reproduce. The photosynthetic part of lichens, however, can live quite well without the body in nutrient-rich water, near water-falls for example. And the soul can live without the body, and does when it's environment is pure light and nutrient-rich word. Souls returning from NDE's describe these environments for us.This view of man fits the scientific evidence best, and is not inconsistent with many spiritually based visions. But it remains true that "if any man thinks he knows something, he doesn't yet know anything as he ought to."Stephen

Loudmouth,Thank you for your well-thought out response. Gave me many things to think about! I hope the results of my deliberations will be useful to you. Well, in science as I have known it so far (and there's a thread called "the best scientific method" in the "Is it science?" forum, where I elaborate on this), we look for measurable physical/chemical patterns that can be deduced from a given hypothesis, and which are confirmed in data. Thus, Thomas tested the hypothesis that Yeshua rose from the dead by putting his physical hand into the physical wounds of the risen Christ. As many have pointed out since, this experiment did not exclude the hypothesis that Yeshua faked His death on the cross, but it was enough to persuade Thomas so that he then chose to live the rest of his life serving the vision of Yeshua, and to die a martyr on His behalf.Thus, as long as any hypothesis makes predictions that can be tested in the measurable physico-chemical world, it's fair scientific game. But this requirement would exclude Newton's theory of gravity, because he had no idea how gravity drew things together. The notion of science as a patient process of discovery allows us to hypothesize almost anything, as long as we can make predictions about what we can measure. Our hope is that constantly making and testing such predictions will lead us into the sort of understanding you are hoping to see. The postulation of a creator is not arbitrary, because the creation looks created, we create life forms (through genetic engineering and artificial selection) and see no reason why someone else could not be out there doing the same, most surviving human societies have found it useful to suppose that such a Creator was out there to be honored and dealt with, many persons report conversations with such a Creator, a book reporting such conversations strikes a chord in so many people that it is the most popular book ever written....I could go on for quite a while, even though the existence of one such reason is proof that the postulate is not arbitrary.As to evidenciary support, the list is even longer. If this postulate is true, then we predict that prayers will have an effect. This has been demonstrated even in double-blind experiments which, given the putative nature of prayer, is somewhat surprising, and is evidence of grace from some Person, as we postulate the Creator to be. In studies of prayer done as prayer is supposed to be done, it has an even greater effect. Ivan Panin's Gematria studies, Del Washburn's Theomatics, the Bible Code studies, the NDE's, the research going on at Duke now....Of course, as the philosophers of science have proved for half a century now, any and all evidence supporting any hypothesis can be explained away by a diligent rationalizer. This can be done without touching in the least the Bayesian estimate of the objective plausibility of the hypothesis. The resulting skepticism is purely subjective, which is what rationalizing is for--a defense of a subjectively held position. Intellectual suicide. You will never see a star wobble with a microscope, you need a telescope. You will never see God with a machine, you need a "seeing eye." How do you get a "seeing eye?" He gives specific instructions, (as it is reasonable a Creator could and might do) in the Bible. Follow the instructions ("the materials and methods" of this scientific document), and, if your experience is like mine, you get the eye and you see all sorts of God-stuff. Let us deal here with the human condition, as reported over the centuries, even up to the present. Solomon could only find one sane man in a thousand. The Psalmist reported that "in my haste, I said that all men are liars." Diogenes looked unsuccessfully his whole life for an honest man. Thomas Kuhn, more recently, reported from the history of science that nearly all scientists were merely "defenders of the faith," busy maintaining the intellectual status quo and resisting the efforts of those seeking the truth at the expense of contemporary paradigms. Yeshua said that "narrow is the gate (to truth), and few are they that find it." Christian theologians conclude that we are all born in original sin, some sort of addiction to lies and evil.So, we have to be careful who we listen to.Now, the original hypothesis says that there is this Creator, and He "wrote" or authored the Bible. Inspired, true, but actually dictated to faithful secretaries, what is written there. It "cannot be broken." according to Yeshua. This book, the Bible has a lot to say about who can be trusted. Christians, those that say of themselves "I am of Christ." are specifically excluded. "Anyone who says that they know God, but do not keep His commandments, is a liar. The truth is not in them."I know not a single person in this fair world who calls themselves a Christian, and has any idea what the commandments are, how many there are, or how they ought to be kept. This is especially true of fundamentalist Christians. Those I have asked have always referred back to "the Ten Commandments," what Yeshua calls a part of the "Law and the Prophets." But, few could accurately tell what these were, and none have known how it is written in Scripture we are specifically commanded to obey them. Trust me that putting a granite monument up in the court house is not written!So, your refering to "Christians" as some sort of authority is misguided. They, of all peoples on earth, can not be trusted. Do what the materials and methods say, and see what you get. The Bible is quite clear that the first ingredient needed to understand the Bible itself, and creation in particular, is a hearing ear, and a heart (courage) to listen to the voice of God, Himself. Without hearing the voice of God, "all that proceeds out of the mouth of God," you cannot get faith ("faith comes from hearing the words of God as these are spoken from His mouth"). And, "whatever is not from faith is sin" or a lie. Then do your science on what you (seem) to be hearing. If you tithed, but not to test God, you didn't follow the protocol's instructions. Then, when the windows of heaven opened, and you felt a part of the christian community, you didn't realize you were getting the result predicted. Bill Gates? "It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, then it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." What do you estimate is the probability that, if Bill Gates were told to sell everything he had, and give all the dollars to the poor, in order to come and live with some homeless guy and learn from him, that he would do it? He probably has the lowest chance of going to heaven of anyone in history. So, it does not appear that the windows of heaven have opened for Bill Gates. But, I could be wrong.The promise is that the windows of heaven will open, and that the devourer will be rebuked. Wish granting? God forbid! I want my joy complete, not my almost always foolish wishes granted! Been there, done that, do not want to go back! Rather be happy, joyful, keen on life. Maybe, maybe not. I understand that the population boom world-wide began when missionaries, especially medical messionaries from biblically based countries, began exporting wisdom relating to health that had been sought out and found in these countries. Moreover, the God Jehovah as presented in the Bible requires humility, not some religious position, for blessing and salvation. "He has told you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god." Your god, whoever or whatever that may be. The standard Christian position misrepresents this, as, according to the Bible, it is the job of Christians to do. Remember, Christians are liars. But with that correlation in hand, you'd be very foolish to live under power lines. Too strong, in my opinion. Weak is not useless. It can pile up, to carry the day. Natural selection and random mutation production of useful genes are implausible when there is evidence for strong willed and powerful agents that will engage in artificial selection and genetic engineering. Hence, evolution is implausible. It is quite hard, statistically, to prove a random effect.But, if creation is true, then the Creator would revive lost understanding. That's why, apparently, the Bible has perservered so well.But, I don't think evolutionary theory will disappear soon, even though evolutionists as a group are a sink population. The disease spreads to the trickle of rebellious offspring of creationists, that use their free will to reject their parents' teachings. Of course, as creationists get purerer and purer in their theology, they will raise their children more and more "the way they should go." diminishing the trickle.Thanks for the stimulating questions.Stephen

Mammuthus,You ask, Bible Code research is the most sophisticated. Theomatics qualifies as well, prayer studies. All that I know of appeal to the God Jehovah.Incidently, Malachi 3:10 cites Jehovah's "falsify Me" experiment. The above one of the many possible ways of scientifically studying the hypothesis. Thomas, in putting his hand in the wounds of Yeshua, was an early example of this sort of thing. Your sarcasm suggests a subjective pressure in your remark that might excuse an otherwise awful display of scientific ignorance. Science has a way of separating competing hypotheses, called strong inference. But ad hoc explanations do not weaken the plausibility of a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed. The Jehovah is real hypothesis has many, many scientific confirmations, and so is rather plausible. Deal with it.Stephen

Mammusthus,Evidently, we don't have the same applied epistemology. Free will is a wonderful thing. Makes us all responsible for what happens to us. As you say, "there is absolutely no excuse."I'll stay with my data-based choices, until there is data that makes me change my mind.Stephen

Mammuthus,You caution me, Few, not no. I was delighted by the Newsweek report of Nov 10. And by the big NIH grant studying this at Duke with Koenig. And by Dossey's book and summaries. It will take time, always does. The scoffers resist, and the true scientists plod ahead.Stephen

Hitchy, They are science. Science is always somewhat inconclusive.And, of course, I work for Jehovah, who sends a spirit of delusion on all those who do not receive the love of the truth. As His servant, I delight in deluding those He hates. That's why you find my name associated with delusional.But, I couldn't be deluded. Too prosperous and fruitful.Stephen

Mammuthus,I think you are ranting, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you sure give a confusing picture of MN.If you say, "I choose life." a lot of what's going on here will be more understandable. Well, you have to mean it.Stephen