The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your security blanket won't keep out the cold.

Same to you mate. I have the entire scientific community and a mountain of evidence backing me up, you have some guys who have demonstrated over and over again that they don't understand evolution or science and who wouldn't defend their theory under oath. I'm pretty confident tbh

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Same to you mate. I have the entire scientific community and a mountain of evidence backing me up, you have some guys who have demonstrated over and over again that they don't understand evolution or science and who wouldn't defend their theory under oath. I'm pretty confident tbh

They have more moneyz and (hopefully not more politcal powers) though:mad:

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Moderated by Bradley Morton who although being an atheist has written a new book defending the merits of ID entitled: "Seeking God in Science: An atheist defends ID." More here

Proof if ever you needed that this debate will probably be a farce, wish Ayala luck but an atheist that supports ID....



Poor guy's even depressed now..

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Craigs a creationist???

Yes, he is. He's a member of the Discovery Institute and has published books on General Relativity and cosmic physics without having studied either topic.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Yes, he is.

Old Earth Creationist then ^^

He's a member of the Discovery Institute and has published books on General Relativity and cosmic physics without having studied either topic.

He's published on those topics...
That's just depressing:(

*I need a moment*
...
*Retreats to losing faith in humanity thread*

Sam Vimes

I'm curious as to how someone calling themselves an atheist can defend the merits of a 'theory' that doesn't really have any merits to speak of but not nearly curious enough to read any more about it. Can someone summarise?

I'm thinking he's not really an atheist, he wrote it to show how someone can mistakenly think it has merits or he's playing devil's advocate. The theory amounts to little more than an argument from lack of imagination so I'm finding it hard to see how someone who doesn't believe in an intelligent designer can defend intelligent design

Soul Winner

Guys guys, it's a future debate. Please wait until you hear it before throwing your stones. Jeez??? The atheist who wrote the book is just the moderator of the debate, he is not partaking in the debate itself. Give Ayala a bit of credit, at least he is willing to listen to the arguments and willing to debate Craig on this topic. The closed mindedness of some of you guys is really depressing at times. :mad:

Sam Vimes

I decided to read part of the link for the craic. Seems it's 3, playing devil's advocate. I'm a little bit more curious now but still not nearly enough. Nothing in evolution requires a designer so I see no reason to postulate one and if there is an intelligent designer he's a very bad one

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Guys guys, it's a future debate. Please wait until you hear it before throwing your stones. Jeez??? The atheist who wrote the book is just the moderator of the debate, he is not partaking in the debate itself. Give Ayala a bit of credit, at least he is willing to listen to the arguments and willing to debate Craig on this topic. The closed mindedness of some of you guys is really depressing at times. :mad:

Soul winner, you think that you have the answer to life, the universe and everything that the only thing that will convince you otherwise is total disproval of the christian god. We're not the closed minded ones here tbh. On the contrary, I have given intelligent design and creationism far more of my time than it deserves. I've given it chance after chance to prove itself and it has failed spectacularly every time just as it has in the scientific arena. Intelligent design is not science, it's creationism in a lab coat

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I decided to read part of the link for the craic. Seems it's 3, playing devil's advocate. I'm a little bit more curious now but still not nearly enough. Nothing in evolution requires a designer so I see no reason to postulate one and if there is an intelligent designer he's a very bad one

Err..Samm

I think..
He's a ploy, just like Cameron has claimed to be an atheist.

Must do further research..NOBODY can defend ID : it's simply rubbish, and this coming from someone who read about ID first before really delving into evolution.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Err..Samm

I think..
He's a ploy, just like Cameron has claimed to be an atheist.

I did put that theory first

That is the most likely but I read the link and took the guy at his word. It's not outside the realms of possibility, the way someone can take a side in a debate that they don't themselves agree with but as I said and you've just reiterated, ID doesn't actually have any merits

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did put that theory first

That is the most likely but I read the link and took the guy at his word. It's not outside the realms of possibility, the way someone can take a side in a debate that they don't themselves agree with but as I said and you've just reiterated, ID doesn't actually have any merits

You oughta have taken a closer look at who exactly is endorsing him...

From his reaction to the dover trial

I will argue that rejection of the supernatural should not be a part of scientific methodology.

Now, suppose that it’s not only the case that ID’s negative attacks have been refuted, but also that ID itself has been refuted. Even so, this doesn’t make ID unscientific. Consider Newtonian physics – this is uncontroversially a scientific theory. Note that it counts as a scientific theory even though it has been refuted. (For example, Newtonian physics predicts that clocks in differing gravitational fields will run at the same rate, while it has been empirically shown that clocks in stronger gravitational fields run slower.)

I'm smelling a rotten fish... will someone tell this guy that Newton's theory was testable i.e it told us the Earth was bulgy sphere, not perfectly spherical (among other things)

. ID consists of more than Behe’s argument from irreducible complexity. For example, there are physics-based arguments for ID, such as the fine-tuning argument, which have nothing to do with irreducible complexity. (According to the fine-tuning argument, some of the values of the fundamental constants in physics are fine-tuned for life, in the sense that if the values were slightly different life couldn’t exist. This arguably provides evidence for the existence of God. For a critical examination of this argument, see for example Monton 2006.)

Really, the trial was about biology class...
Also this isn't what the creationists initially claimed ID to be...hmm

He may be a genuine atheist, but, if so, he's simply a denier i.e what Bill Maher is to vaccinations.

man of faith

man of faith wrote: »

There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after - making Psalm 118 the centre chapter of the Bible. The very centre verse of the Bible falls on Psalm 118 verse 8 (118:8).

594 + 594 = 1188!!!

Here is what it says:

'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man' (KJV).

Firstly the Bible demonstrates this unexplained numerical phenomonen, then follows up with a statement that blows man's wisdom out of the water. If you are choosing to put your trust in the theory of evolution, please remember this and please reconsider. There is too much at stake!

Just to also add - it is extremely arrogant to put confidence in the perception of the human scientific mind in relation to the biggest Question that faces us:
The question of how us, our planet and our universe came to exist. Us and our little pea brains are but a vapour in comparison to what we now understand as an infinite universe. Myself, along with other Christians have enough humility and wisdom to come to this conclusion.
When I wake up each day, I remain awe-struck of the incredible complexity of us, our planet and our universe. The more I ponder this, the more I realise how arrogant it is to fail to acknowledge a Supreme Being who is much higher than ourselves. Obviously this is a very valid response, when you consider that we are living in 2009 AD - our very own calender in the western world centred around a man that walked the earth 2009 years ago claiming to be the Son of God. For our very calender that represents time itself to be altered by His life, the world must have been pretty convinced that He was who He said He was. Here are some other things to consider:
Australian parliament commences the days proceedings with 'The Lords Prayer' Matthew 6: 9-15. We still swear on The Bible in our law courts and their very institution is founded on Biblical principles. Nations and governments founded on the principles taught in a book that up until this day remains the number one bestseller of all time.

So if you choose to remain skeptical, atleast do so in light of what I have just mentioned here. God bless.

P.S Check out the findings of 'The Shroud of Turin'. Is it the burial cloth of Jesus Christ? I won't claim to say yes or no. What they have found that it is an unexplainable phenomenon. It has been confirmed that the imprint is in fact blood, not paint (Type AB which is very rare) and that the image itself is a photo negative. This is only possible by an extreme exposure to a very bright light - perhaps the ressurection. As I said, I won't say that it definitely is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but highly possible. It is very interesting when you consider the highly experienced coroners report that explains the evidence of deep puncture wounds to the top of the head and the hands and feet - the blood flows indicate this.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's up to you to show either the fly evolving into a non-fly over many generations by observation or an unbroken fossil sequence. All you provide are fossils from different places and a story that says they are a family tree. No proof - just assertions.

Wolfsbane, first you must define what a fly and a non-fly is. You do realise your not even using scientific terminology here ?

Please describe the biological traits of a 'fly' and tell us what constitutes a non-fly. That or use some real scientific terminology.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

To me, if you are crazy enough to put your faith in man's wisdom and all of man's concocted theories, than your faith is exponentially higher than mine.

Like gravity ? Am I crazy to believe in gravity ? :pac:

man of faith

Morbert wrote: »

This retrofitting isn't hard. The true test is using such statistical methods to rigorously predict future events.

Then what is the meaning behind the phrase "The Good News"?

response to first quote: This was demonstrated in 'The Bible Code' - author Michael Drosnin. Check it out if you haven't already.
response to second quote: The answer John 3:16 - just google it.

man of faith

RESPONSE TO MONOSHARPS QUESTION ABOUT GRAVITY

Of course not. God had to give us a certain level of intelligence to discover certain laws that He created. How else would we develop into the species we are today with the dominion that we have? After all, the Bible does tell us that we were created in His express image and likeness.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

We can create and intelligently design, just not on the same level as Him. I read somewhere that the if amount of data and programmed instruction in just one pinhead of dna was stored by methods developed by man such as computer disks, books etc. it would stretch to astronomical proportions. Have a read if your interested: http://creation.com/dazzling-design-in-miniature-dna-information-storage-creation-magazine

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

RESPONSE TO MONOSHARPS QUESTION ABOUT GRAVITY

Of course not. God had to give us a certain level of intelligence to discover certain laws that He created. How else would we develop into the species we are today with the dominion that we have?

Exactly, this is how we know evolution occurred and is occurring.

It may not be my belief, but there is nothing in evolution or any other science that disproves a god or gods. It is simply a fact of biological life.

Maybe a god or gods started it all, maybe evolution is his 'method' but there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a fact.

You only make your beliefs look fundamentalist and blind to the world when you deny such facts.

Its thinking like creationism that would have humanity still believing the earth is flat and we're the centre of the universe.

Science, Geology, Biology, Physics etc do not disprove your god or anyones god, it simply explains the natural world.

It does of course completely disprove a literal interpretation of the bible which the vast majority of christians do not hold to anyways.

After all, the Bible does tell us that we were created in His express image and likeness.

I'm only going to say this once. Quoting the bible is not going to get you anywhere with me or anyone else here. You might as well quote from Lord of the Rings, it means the same thing to me.

Maybe its true, maybe its not but there is no proof of any scientific truth in any religious book ever written.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

Thats nothing. Ainulindale created everything by just singing about it! Morgoth was of course the one who sang out of tune and so became fallen.

We can create and intelligently design, just not on the same level as Him. I read somewhere that the if amount of data and programmed instruction in just one pinhead of dna was stored by methods developed by man such as computer disks, books etc.

What is 'one pinhead of dna' ? :rolleyes:

The entire human DNA strand could fit on a DVD mate. And regardless if it could or couldn't I don't see thats any proof for or against god. Its meaningless.

In a few years we will have computers more powerful then the human brain. So what ? Will that disprove god ? Of course not.

it would stretch to astronomical proportions. Have a read if your interested: http://creation.com/dazzling-design-in-miniature-dna-information-storage-creation-magazine

Wow it would reach to the moon if it was printed in books. How awe inspiring :rolleyes:

If I can prove to you that that same amount of information could fit on a man-made digital medium would that disprove god ? :pac:

J C

robindch wrote: »

....the Islamic forum doesn't tolerate people which suggest that their worldview is, or could be, wrong.

...a bit like some of the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:):D

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just as an aside, (and apologies if if has been mentioned before) there is a very interesting debate coming up on November 5.

"Intelligent Design: Is it viable?" William Lane Craig versus Francisco Ayala. For once Craig has got his work cut out.

Moderated by Bradley Morton who although being an atheist has written a new book defending the merits of ID entitled: "Seeking God in Science: An atheist defends ID." More here

Should be good - Ayala looks formidable to say the least.

....like I have said here....we can look forward, possibly in 30 years time, and possibly on this thread, that some Evolutionist will claim that ID was Darwinian Evolution after all??!!!

...make that about 5 years!!!!:D

Prof Ayala is obviously a very eminent man ... unfortunately he is arguing against something (ID) that obviously exists!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

You oughta have taken a closer look at who exactly is endorsing him...

From his reaction to the dover trial




I'm smelling a rotten fish... will someone tell this guy that Newton's theory was testable i.e it told us the Earth was bulgy sphere, not perfectly spherical (among other things)


Really, the trial was about biology class...
Also this isn't what the creationists initially claimed ID to be...hmm

He may be a genuine atheist, but, if so, he's simply a denier i.e what Bill Maher is to vaccinations.

Ah right, yes I should've read a bit more. As I said I wasn't that curious :P

man of faith wrote: »

Just to also add - it is extremely arrogant to put confidence in the perception of the human scientific mind in relation to the biggest Question that faces us:
The question of how us, our planet and our universe came to exist. Us and our little pea brains are but a vapour in comparison to what we now understand as an infinite universe. Myself, along with other Christians have enough humility and wisdom to come to this conclusion.

The difference between me and a christian is that I have the humility to admit I don't know the answer to those questions yet. You are still working on the assumption that atheists have rejected god but I have not rejected god, I have rejected what I consider to be mythology, the same way you reject other religions. Of all the thousands of religions in history you only believe in one, you're almost as much of an atheist as me

man of faith wrote: »

When I wake up each day, I remain awe-struck of the incredible complexity of us, our planet and our universe. The more I ponder this, the more I realise how arrogant it is to fail to acknowledge a Supreme Being who is much higher than ourselves.

Irreducible complexity has been proven to be nonsense. Please get your information anywhere other than a creationist website

man of faith wrote: »

Obviously this is a very valid response, when you consider that we are living in 2009 AD - our very own calender in the western world centred around a man that walked the earth 2009 years ago claiming to be the Son of God. For our very calender that represents time itself to be altered by His life, the world must have been pretty convinced that He was who He said He was. Here are some other things to consider:
Australian parliament commences the days proceedings with 'The Lords Prayer' Matthew 6: 9-15. We still swear on The Bible in our law courts and their very institution is founded on Biblical principles. Nations and governments founded on the principles taught in a book that up until this day remains the number one bestseller of all time.

So if you choose to remain skeptical, atleast do so in light of what I have just mentioned here. God bless.

P.S Check out the findings of 'The Shroud of Turin'. Is it the burial cloth of Jesus Christ? I won't claim to say yes or no. What they have found that it is an unexplainable phenomenon. It has been confirmed that the imprint is in fact blood, not paint (Type AB which is very rare) and that the image itself is a photo negative. This is only possible by an extreme exposure to a very bright light - perhaps the ressurection. As I said, I won't say that it definitely is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but highly possible. It is very interesting when you consider the highly experienced coroners report that explains the evidence of deep puncture wounds to the top of the head and the hands and feet - the blood flows indicate this.

Yes lots of people find christianity convincing but lots of people also find islam, buddhism, hinduism, judaism, scientology etc etc etc etc convincing. This is known as an argument ad populum and it's a logical fallacy and not even a particularly relevant one considering lots of other religions are also extremely popular.

Oh and the shroud of turin was a hoax apparently. I'll go and look it up...

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh and the shroud of turin was a hoax apparently. I'll go and look it up...

This might be the link you were thinking of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8291948.stm

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

This might be the link you were thinking of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8291948.stm

Hadn't seen that one no

I just remembered something about it having been dated back to the 14th century. Turns out it was verified by three independent organisations to the same time period. Of course that didn't stop the believers.

http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

And something that confuses me is: if it turns out it was actually used to cover the body of Jesus, so what? All it would prove is that he was crucified. I have no problem with believing a man was crucified, my problem starts when he gets back up again

man of faith

PDN wrote: »

manoffaith, I would advise you to put your faith in the Bible rather than in the calculations of a 13th Century Catholic Archbishop and a 16th Century French printer.

The division of the Bible into Chapters did not take place until around 1200AD, and the verses were not introduced until 1551. So anyone reading significance into the arrangements of chapters and verses are constructing arguments on man made traditions rather than the Word of God.

So, by relying on calculations about verses and chapters, you are doing the very thing that Psalm 118:8 warns against. You are putting confidence in men rather than trusting the Lord.

Ok, then how about all the countless other occurences of numerical phenomenon. Did the Archbishop and the printer just conrtrive this too?

Hasn't it occurred to you that even though man may have arranged it into chapters and verses, God may have also been the orchestrator of this. Man also wrote all the words which Christians believe to be divinely inspired by God. Surely if the words were divinely inspired, why not also the arrangements of chapters and verses? I understand this as a truth by acknowledging the omniscient (all knowing) characteristic of God, hence He would of been fully aware of the future arrangement of chapters and verses - obviously essential to make His Word user friendly to the whole world. If His ultimate plan was to redeem mankind by sending His Son to die for every human being alive, He would have to allow for the categorisation of chapters and verses to make studying the Bible easy to be referenced too. Its perfectly logical. Of course you will scoff at this statement, as you adamantly disagree with me that the Bible is nothing other than a collection of fairy tales.

Remember that no other book written in history correlates with the historical record with the same degree of accuracy, than that of the Bible.

Remember also that the historical record tells us that the Bible was written over a 1500 year span, starting approximately around 1400 BC around the time of Moses and the 10 commandments and finishing around 95 AD with the 4 gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke and John).

Get a statistician to calculate the probability of a conspiracy of contrived authors spanning over a 1500 year period to include all the numerical phenomenon in their alleged bid to fool the whole world, and get back to me will you! Oh and also don't forget about all the fullfilled prophecies of the storyboard of Jesus' life in the old testament as well as the numerous prophetic fullfillment over the course of the last 2000 years even up to Israel reforming as a nation in 1948 (as prophesied) and the current threat of Iran attacking Israel as propesied in Ezeikel 38 and 39. Also don't forget about the current efforts of all the US presidents since the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference for a dual Israel Palestinian state as prophesied in Joel 3:1-2 - The valley of Jehosophat refers to 'Jehovah has judged'. This pressure has been intensified by Obama as a solution for peace. America has directly interfered with the covenant land that was made with Abraham by God. We have seen immense judgement on them in the last 18 years - Katrina, 9/11, various hurricanes, floods and now their economy lays in ruins. America is finished. They starting by blessing the nation of Israel, now they are squashing them. As a result they are now being squashed! Here is a link if you care to read more: http://www.americaisraelprophecy.com/woetothem.html

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, then how about all the countless other occurences of numerical phenomenon. Did the Archbishop and the printer just conrtrive this too?

Hasn't it occurred to you that even though man may have arranged it into chapters and verses, God may have also been the orchestrator of this. Man also wrote all the words which Christians believe to be divinely inspired by God. Surely if the words were divinely inspired, why not also the arrangements of chapters and verses? I understand this as a truth by acknowledging the omniscient (all knowing) characteristic of God, hence He would of been fully aware of the future arrangement of chapters and verses - obviously essential to make His Word user friendly to the whole world. If His ultimate plan was to redeem mankind by sending His Son to die for every human being alive, He would have to allow for the categorisation of chapters and verses to make studying the Bible easy to be referenced too. Its perfectly logical. Of course you will scoff at this statement, as you adamantly disagree with me that the Bible is nothing other than a collection of fairy tales.

It's hilarious that you're saying that to the moderator of the christianity forum who is of course a christian and who believes in Jonah, the flood and very long lives in the past thinks that the bible is a fairy tale

No one's saying it's contrived, we're saying it's a coincidence. Numerical patterns like this are found all over the place, as someone already pointed out the apparent rules used for finding patterns in the bible were applied to many other books and "meaning" was also found in them.

man of faith wrote: »

Remember that no other book written in history correlates with the historical record with the same degree of accuracy, than that of the Bible.

I've heard people say that a lot but I've never seen anything to back it up.

man of faith wrote: »

Oh and also don't forget about all the fullfilled prophecies of the storyboard of Jesus' life in the old testament as well as the numerous prophetic fullfillment over the course of the last 2000 years even up to Israel reforming as a nation in 1948 (as prophesied) and the current threat of Iran attacking Israel as propesied in Ezeikel 38 and 39.

If the bible said "The nation of Israel will reform in 1948 after the second world war and the nation of Iran will attack them on (whatever date it was)" I might give it a bit of my time but, as with most prophecies, they're vague enough to be applied to anything. And as I already said, the only evidence we have for Jesus fulfilling any of the prophecies is the bible and if I accepted the bible as proof I'd already be a believer. And as I also already said, the prophecies were known in Jesus' time. If you read a prophecy and set about fulfilling it, that's not miraculous.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

At this point some will argue that the terms ‘useful’, ‘meaningful’, ‘functional’, etc. are misused. They claim that if some change gives survival value then by definition it has biological ‘meaning’ and usefulness. But this assumes that living systems do nothing but survive—when in fact they and their subsystems carry out projects and have specific functions. That is, they carry teleonomic information.

There is no evidence of this, he is just popping it in with a fancy word and hopping no one notices because his later points rely on it. There is no evidence that any genetic information is teleonomic information (goal orientated information).

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Darwinian assumption is always made, of course, that at some time in the organism’s evolutionary history, the project had survival/reproductive value.

That is because this is the only supported conclusion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

it is legitimate to talk about genetic information in a teleonomic sense, in isolation from any possible survival value.

No it isn't because there is no model in biology that explains teleonomic information in DNA. "God did it" is not a scientific model

You can't just say that DNA has purpose and is goal orientated and they make a bunch of conclusions based on that assumption.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity.

That is a complete lie, this has been observed many times.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The very small number of ‘beneficial’ mutations actually observed are simply the wrong kind of change for evolution—we do not see the addition of new sentences which carry meaning and information.

Again that is a lie.

Seriously Wolfsbane what is the point of posting this? Did you actually read it yourself? You know these claims have been refuted many many times before, you know no one here is going to take this seriously because it is just a bare faced lie.

What is the point?

man of faith

Man, its pointless discussing any of this with you. You are only going to write off anything i put to you and carefully knitpick through my responses for some way to make me look like an idiot and just another religous nut. The prophecies are not vague at all, they are very accurate and specific. Where do you get vague out of 'whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.'
Joel 3:2. If you look at history over the last 2000 years, you will see that the Jews have been scattered all across the world. Turn on CNN or google world news and madrid peace conference and you will see fighting and negotiations for land between Israel and Palestine over the past 18 years which has been orchestrated by America, or don't you watch the news. This is at the very heart of all the conflict in the Middle East.

Your response is a classic atheistic comeback to Bible prophecy. This is the best you can come up with in the face of such compelling evidence supporting God and The Bible and Christianity.

Seriously man, are you sure that you are not choosing to be an atheist because you desperately don't want the Bible to be true? Are you afraid that its just way too confronting and you don't want to change your thinking and adapt our disciplined way of life? If only you realised just how amazing life becomes when you choose to believe.

I'm saddened that you have allowed yourself to be so deceived. Why don't you make a hypothetical prayer to God, even if you don't believe in Him, just to enquire if what I have put to you is true. Nothing may happen, but you never know. I have heard of mind blowing occurances take place when people have done this. All the best.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

The nature of actual variation and the nature of the barrier to fish-to-philosopher evolution:

The concept of information
The letters on this [printed] page—that is, the matter making up the ink and paper—all obey the laws of physics and chemistry, but these laws are not responsible for the information they carry. Information may depend on matter for its storage, transmission and retrieval, but is not a property of it. The ideas expressed in this article, for instance, originated in mind and were imposed on the matter. Living things also carry tremendous volumes of information on their biological molecules—again, this information is not a property of their chemistry, not a part of matter and the physical laws per se. It results from the order—from the way in which the letters of the cell’s genetic ‘alphabet’ are arranged. This order has to be imposed on these molecules from outside their own properties. Living things pass this information on from generation to generation. The base sequences of the DNA molecule effectively spell out a genetic ‘blue-print’ which determines the ultimate properties of the organism. In the final analysis, inherited biological variations are expressions of the variations in this information. Genes can be regarded as ‘sentences’ of hereditary information written in the DNA ‘language’.

Imagine now the first population of living things on the evolutionist’s ‘primitive earth’. This so-called ‘simple cell’ would, of course, have a lot of genetic information, but vastly less than the information in only one of its present-day descendant gene pools, e.g., man. The evolutionist proposes that this ‘telegram’ has given rise to ‘encyclopedias’ of meaningful, useful genetic sentences. (See later for discussion of ‘meaning’ and ‘usefulness’ in a biological sense.) Thus he must account for the origin with time of these new and meaningful sentences. His only ultimate source for these is mutation.3

Going back to the analogy of the printed page, the information in a living creature’s genes is copied during reproduction, analogous to the way in which an automatic typewriter reproduces information over and over. A mutation is an accident, a mistake, a ‘typing error’. Although most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless, evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival/reproduction. By looking now at the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, it will be seen why these are not the source of new sentences and therefore why the evolutionist generally relies on mutation of one sort or another in his scheme of things.

1. Mendelian variation
This is the mechanism responsible for most of the new varieties which we see from breeding experiments and from reasonable inferences in nature. Sexual reproduction allows packets of information to be combined in many different ways, but will not produce any new packets or sentences. For example, when the many varieties of dog were bred from a ‘mongrel’ stock, this was achieved by selecting desired traits in successive generations, such that the genes or sentences for these traits became isolated into certain lines. Although some of these sentences may have been ‘hidden from view’ in the original stock, they were already present in that population. (We are disregarding mutation for the moment, since such new varieties may arise independently of any new mutations in the gene pool. Some dogs undoubtedly have mutant characteristics.)

This sort of variation can only occur if there is a storehouse of such sentences available to choose from. Natural (or artificial) selection can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest, which is the real question. These Mendelian variations tell us nothing about how the genetic information in the present stock arose. Hence, it is not the sort of change required to demonstrate ‘upward’ evolution—there has been no addition of new and useful ‘sentences’. And this is in spite of the fact that it is possible to observe many new varieties in this way—even new species. If you define a species as a freely interbreeding natural unit, it is easy to see how new species could arise without any ‘uphill’ change. That is, without the addition of any new information coding for any new functional complexity. For example, mutation could introduce a defect which served as a genetic barrier, or simple physical differences, such as the sizes of Great Dane and Chihuahua, could make interbreeding impossible in nature.

It is a little surprising to still see the occasional creationist literature clinging to the concept that no new species have ever been observed. Even if this were true, and there is some suggestion that it has actually been observed, there are instances of ‘clines’ in field observations which make it virtually certain that two now-isolated (reproductively) species have arisen from the same ancestral gene pool. Yet the very same creationists who seem reluctant to make that sort of admission would be quite happy to agree with the rest of us that the various species within what may be regarded as the ‘dog’ kind, including perhaps wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and the domestic dog, have arisen from a single ancestral kind. So why may this no longer be permitted to be happening under present-day observations? It is not only biblically and scientifically unnecessary, but it sets up a ‘straw man’ in the sense that any definite observation of a new species arising is used as a further lever with which to criticize creationists.

What we see in the process of artificial selection or breeding giving rise to new varieties, is a thinning-out of the information in the parent stock, a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation. If you try and breed a Chihuahua from a Great Dane population or vice versa, you will find that your population lacks the necessary ‘sentences’. This is because, as each variety was selected out, the genes it carried were not representative of the entire gene pool.

What appeared to be a dramatic example of change with the appearance of apparently new traits thus turns out, when its genetic basis is understood, to be an overall downward movement in informational terms. The number of sentences carried by each subgroup is reduced thus making it less likely to survive future environmental changes. Extrapolating that sort of process forward in time does not lead to upwards evolution, but ultimately to extinction with the appearance of evermore-informationally-depleted populations.

2. Polyploidy
Again, no sentences appear which did not previously exist. This is the multiplication (‘photocopying’) of information already present.

3. Hybridizatlon
Again, no new sentences. This is the mingling of two sets of information already present.

4. Mutation
Since mutations are basically accidents, it is not surprising that they are observed to be largely harmful, lethal or meaningless to the function or survival of an organism. Random changes in a highly ordered code introduce ‘noise’ and chaos, not meaning, function and complexity, which tend to be lost. However, it is conceivable that in a complex world, occasionally a ‘destructive’ change will have a limited usefulness. For example, if we knock out a sentence such that there is a decrease in leg length in sheep (and there is such a mutation), this is useful to stop them jumping over the farmer’s fence. A beetle on a lonely, wind-swept island may have a mutation which causes it to lose or corrupt the information coding for wing manufacture; hence its wingless successors will not be so easily blown out to sea and will thus have a selective advantage. Eyeless fish in caves, some cases of antibiotic resistance—the handful of cases of mutations which are quite ‘beneficial’—do not involve the sort of increase in functional complexity which evolutionary theory demands. Nor would one expect this to be possible from a random change.

At this point some will argue that the terms ‘useful’, ‘meaningful’, ‘functional’, etc. are misused. They claim that if some change gives survival value then by definition it has biological ‘meaning’ and usefulness. But this assumes that living systems do nothing but survive—when in fact they and their subsystems carry out projects and have specific functions. That is, they carry teleonomic information. This is one of the essential differences between living objects and non-living ones (apart from machines). These projects do not always give rise to survival/reproductive advantages—in fact, they may have very little to do with survival, but are carried out very efficiently. The Darwinian assumption is always made, of course, that at some time in the organism’s evolutionary history, the project had survival/reproductive value. (For example, the archer-fish with its highly-skilled ‘hobby’ of shooting down bugs which it does not require for survival at the present time.) However, since these are nontestable assumptions, it is legitimate to talk about genetic information in a teleonomic sense, in isolation from any possible survival value.

The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

To illustrate further—the molecule haemoglobin in man carries out its project of transporting and delivering oxygen in red cells in a functionally efficient manner. A gene or ‘sentence’ exists which codes for the production of haemoglobin. There is a known mutation (actually three separate ones, giving the same result) in which only one letter in the sentence has been accidentally replaced by another. If you inherit this change from both parents, you will be seriously ill with a disease called sickle cell anaemia and will not survive for very long. Yet evolutionists frequently use this as an example of a ‘beneficial mutation’. This is because if you inherit it from only one parent, your red cells will be affected, but not seriously enough to affect your survival—just enough to prevent the malaria parasite from using them as an effective host. Hence, you will be more immune to malaria and better able to survive in malaria-infested areas. This shows us how a functionally efficient haemoglobin molecule became a functionally crippled haemoglobin molecule. The mutation-caused gene for this disease is maintained at high levels in malaria-endemic regions by this incidental phenomenon of heterozygote superiority. Its damaging effect in a proportion of offspring is balanced by the protection it gives against malaria. It is decidedly not an ‘upward’ change. We have not seen a new, efficient oxygen transport mechanism or its beginnings evolve. We have not seen the haemoglobin transport mechanism improved.

One more loose but possibly useful analogy. Let us say an undercover agent is engaged in sending a daily reassuring telegram from enemy territory. The text says ‘the enemy is not attacking today’. One day an accident occurs in transmission and the word ‘not’ is lost. This is very likely going to be a harmful change, perhaps even triggering a nuclear war by mistake. But perhaps, in a freak situation, it could turn out to be useful (for example, by testing the fail-safe mechanisms involved). But this does not mean that it is the sort of change required to begin to convert the telegram into an encyclopedia.

The very small number of ‘beneficial’ mutations actually observed are simply the wrong kind of change for evolution—we do not see the addition of new sentences which carry meaning and information. Again surprisingly, one often reads creationist works which insist that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. If benefit is defined purely in survival terms, then we would not expect this to be true in all instances, and in fact it is not—that is, there are indeed ‘beneficial’ mutations in that sense only.

Information depends on order, and since all of our observations and our understanding of entropy tells us that in a natural, spontaneous, unguided and unprogrammed process order will decrease, the same will be true of information. The physicist and communications engineer should not be surprised at the realisation that biological processes involve no increases in useful or functional (teleonomic) information and complexity. In fact, the net result of any biological process involving transmission of information (i.e., all hereditary variation) is conservation or loss of that genetic information.

This points back directly to the creation of the information, supernaturally, in the beginning. It is completely in harmony with the biblical concept of a world made ‘very good’ as a balanced, functioning whole, with decay only subsequent to the Fall. This is the reason why there are inevitable limits to variation, why the creationist does not have to worry about how many new ‘species’ the future may bring—because there is a limit to the amount of functionally efficient genetic information present, and natural processes such as mutation cannot add to this original storehouse.

Notice that since organisms were created to migrate out from a central point at least once and fill empty ecological niches, as well as having to cope with a decaying and changing environment, they would require considerable variation potential. Without this built-in genetic flexibility, most populations would not be present today. Hence the concept of biological change is in a sense predicted by the biblical model, not something forced upon it only because such change has occurred.

Many of these paragraphs are irrelevant. And those that aren't are wrong. None of the relevant assertions about information in DNA, for example, are supported by research.

I would recommend reading some research papers.

http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622890/description#description

If they are too heavy to begin with, or you cannot access them, then pick up a book or two on molecular biology or bioinformatics. Posting incorrect polemics won't get us anywhere.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

....we can look forward, possibly in 30 years time, and possibly on this thread, that some Evolutionist will claim that ID was Darwinian Evolution after all??!!!

Punctuated equilibrium is Darwinian evolution. ID is not.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...you are technically correct ... Evolution doesn't violate the laws of probability - it simply cannot overcome the laws of probability!!!!:D

Yes it can, through the natural selection of genetic mutation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology