I, like most people (especially bids) ride the shit out of kantner. Recently though he took me to task when I made a comment that Evolution should be considered a law. In his responce he said “Number one, just by what its called “the THEORY of Evolution” should tell you one thing about it. #2, how can something be considered law, that has contradictory evidence all over the place. It may be consider close to legit if carbon dating wasnt proven to be fault. And if you really want to believe that you volved from a rock, thenI’m sorry that I threw your grandfather at a car earlier today. If this person, (I wont mention any names, but if you would like to get a chuckle, go to popsblogspot.blogspot.com) would really like to hear about, they should check out a guy by the name of Dr. Kent Hovand and his arguement on creation vs. evolution, and look into his $25,000 dollar “reward” for anyone who can prove evolution and disprove his stance on creationsm. You should check this out..http://www.drdino.com/articles.php it may help clear some thing up.”
When I first read this my immediate reaction was that I’m right he’s wrong. This is the initial reaction that I think anyone has when faced with aa contrary point of view. If I don’t move on from that initial point of view then I’m closed minded. Instead I need to look at new evidence when it is provided to me and make judgment based on what I already know or believe to know and also what information I am being presented with.
So tonight I am going to hit up this Dr. Dino’s site and read what he has to say. But first I need to respond to the direct quotes from Noze’s Blog.
While reading someones blog, I came across the idea that they want “The theory of evolution should be concidered a law.” Number one, just by what its called “the THEORY of Evolution” should tell you one thing about it. #2, how can something be considered law, that has contradictory evidence all over the place. – Noze’s Blog
In responce to Noze’s question “How can something be considered law, that has contradictory evidence all over the place?” Almost every law has exceptions. Even the law of relativity of Einstein’s Fame. For something to be a scientific law it is expected to in some situations to have contradictory evidence. Why? Because there may be outside influences over this evidence that don’t pertain to the law it’s self. This may also deal with the fact that instruments used ot messure of collect this evidence or data may be flawed, or just unable to gather information at certain intensities. If we used the logic that because controdictory evidence exsits that something is not true, then almost all scientific laws would be out the window.
It may be consider close to legit if carbon dating wasnt proven to be fault. And if you really want to believe that you volved from a rock, thenI’m sorry that I threw your grandfather at a car earlier today. – Noze
I understand the doubts in regards to carbon dating. I can not myself validate the carbon dating method. But here are some links that are designed for that purpose.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (disbuting Carbon Dating)
Here is the problem with saying that evolution is illogical based on the limitations of carbon dating. Carbon Dating is not the only, or even the main tool used to determin the age of a fossil. Here is an excerpt from Nation Geographic Q/A found at http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/10/01/extra_1/extra_1_wk3.html#Q1 :
There has been much discussion about the validity of carbon dating? How reliable is it? Is there any other method you have of dating the finds you are making?
Carbon dating has limitations because it can only be used to date relatively young fossils, usually no older than 50,000 years and a maximum of 100,000 years. This is because the half-life of the relevant carbon isotope is so short. We use potassium argon dating and we do not date the actual fossils. Instead we date volcanic layers in which we find the fossils or which sandwich the sedimentary layers in which we find the fossils. Because the half-life of the relevant potassium isotope is so long, this method can be used on very old rocks.
If this person, (I wont mention any names, but if you would like to get a chuckle, go to popsblogspot.blogspot.com) would really like to hear about, they should check out a guy by the name of Dr. Kent Hovand and his arguement on creation vs. evolution – Noze
So I went to the site Noze mentioned and started reading some of the articles. I actually had a hard time finding articles written by Dr. Kent Hovand himself that dealt specifically with the evolution issue. I did find another article on this site by I’m assuming one of the Dr’s associates. The link is here http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=108.
Below is the exact text that appears on the website Noze mentions. The only thing I’ve altered are my comments in bold type.
Livescience.com announced that they would begin a public examination of the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement this week. This examination will continue in subsequent installments to their website. We will be keeping up to date with their work on our site, www.drdino.com.
Intelligent Design, arguably, is one of the most feared things in the materialistic mind-set of “big bangers” (proponents of the Big Bang Theory & Evolutionism) and atheistic evolutionists today. As a coherent scientific alternative to materialistic origins, it serves as a great educational device in gearing students toward thinking more critically about the world around them. ID causes us to be more “open-minded” regarding nature, and its methods of working.
*I never liked the idea that in a scientific piece of literature, someone has emphasized pre-exsisting ideologies. But doing this i’m sure helps grab peoples attention. In this first paragraph the author says “As a Coherent scientific alternative to materalistic origins, it serves as a great educationl device in gearing students toward thinking more crically about the world around them.” I think the open mindset and critical thinking of today’s student’s is important, just as long as the information is TRULY coherent scientific works. Watch how often this author aludes to the fact that this information is scientific without every really giving references or specific data to support his theories.*
Darwin’s Black Box: A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Although ID proponents have done much great scientific work, the materialists just can’t seem to embrace the possibility of non-natural design existing in our home – the universe. At a wave of the hand, amazing intricacies such as the fine-tuning of the solar-system, the amazing design of cells and Lilliputian organelles, the awe-inspiring insects, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and even the very eyes you use to read, all become the result of chance processes over billions of years with no intelligent input whatsoever.
*One of the basis for Intellegent Design (ID) is the fact that what is listed above is too complex to be random and had to have a guiding hand. Evolution does not say that these things happen at random but rather that when variations appear they are replicated because they work better. That’s not chance as the author insinuates. If an animal has a genetic mutation that leads to it having the ability to run faster, than over time it’s desendants will go from being a minority to being the majority because the slower animals are getting eaten before they can reproduce. This is a very long process. Also when there are genetic abnormailties that create a disadvantage, those animals may not even get a chance to reproduce because their disadvantage causes them to be wiped out by preditors. You see this in business where a superior product causes one product to thrive while the other product goes “extinct”. Products don’t become extinct by chance and neither does evolution ever claim to be a chance.*
Fortunately, people are able to think – and even with an open-mind at times. National polls have recently indicated that just over 50% of Americans feel that humans have endured no evolution, but instead were created. Now, popular opinion doesn’t establish fact, but we shouldn’t wave these numbers off either. Our neighborhood evolutionist can respond to those figures by saying, “Well, the average person doesn’t understand what really takes place – they’re not scientifically qualified to be the subject of such a poll.”
I would agree that if my stomach hurts, I would see a doctor, and not a plumber. But at the same time, practically every American public school student – including Mom and Pop – has been through biology class many times. They’ve been given the 1-2 about who they are, and where they came from. They’ve been quizzed, tested, lectured, and questioned on the subject of human evolution. So wouldn’t they be qualified to explain how persuaded they were by the evolutionistic arguments? Certainly they would. And yet they remain unconvinced.
*Just because large numbers of people study something and are unable to be convinced is not a scientific indicator. Imagine if you sat down every high school student and taught them a class on quantum mechanics. After the class ended you could put them out in the real world for several years, where their church and some media say “Quantum mechanics are not valid, and there is scientific prrof out there that says so.” Then give them a similar poll asking if quantum mechanics are a valid scientific practice, i’m sure that 50% might not agree. This is a somewhat absurd comparison, but what i’m really trying to show is that this poll mentioned doesn’t really have any bearing on a sceintific discussion. Think how many times in the course of modern history large masses of people have been mislead, or ill informed, and then decided if this poll has any real scientific merit.*
Evolutionists have in the recent years become more and more vocal regarding ID, and proponents of other camps, such as Creationists. Creation, and ID have been features in many prominent secular journals such as Scientific American, Discover, Science, etc. Following this trend, LiveScience has decided to give us their two-cents on the topic.
The article, “Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution” begins with a very true statement. The author, Ker Than, writes “Science can sometimes be a devil’s bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.” I would stand in almost-complete agreement with Ker on this. The problem arises when certain people are unwilling to be flexible with their personal views – be they ‘religious’, or even ‘scientific’.
Take for example evolutionism. The very backbone of their worldview rests upon the idea that nature is fully capable of creating itself (if you give it enough time) and that no higher being has played around with this earth, or the life on it at any time. They require what is called uniformitarianism – the strongly held belief that the key to the past is the present. Or as others would say, the way things happen now are the way they’ve always been.
*”The way things happen now are the way they’ve always been.” is not something would be considered part of the backbone of evolutionism. In fact evolution dictates that there is a lot of flexibility in nature and that is part of what causes changes with in a species and is why thins are not as they used to be.*
They “cannot let a divine foot in the door” simply because now we have a much more difficult time interpreting history indirectly. To my point – I agree that certain findings upset certain people, big deal, it happens. One of these examples could be the word found within the first book of the Bible – Genesis. “In the beginning, God created…” upsets a lot of evolutionists.
*The bible is not a finding, and it doesn’t upset people who believe in evolution. The reason it doesn’t upset people who believe in evolution is because it has no bearing on what they judge as a scientific principle. Once again the author is trying to create a clash between ideologies that does not need to be there.*
Ker moves on to calling Darwinism a “truth” that “can be a hard one to accept.” But is what Darwin thought really worth calling “truth”? I would agree that his theory is a rather hard one to accept. This is why today many leading scientists are Bible-believing Christians. The same goes for historical scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and even Galileo Galilei. Even scientists today roundly reject Darwin’s belief. Dr. Raymond Damadian being one of the top, as the pioneer of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), used in just about every major hospital today. Lists have been compiled, and the names are impressive. Many well-established scientists of history, and our day, have a very difficult time affirming Darwin’s hypothesis.
*Ok I have two problems here. Once is the fact that he entions an MRI specialists as a pioneer who rejects darwin’s theory. I am not saying that this doctor is not the leader in his field, but I don’t feel that an MRI expert has all the qualification to say difinitively that Darwin’s theory is not sound. Ok Here is the thing that just made me fly off the handle. Tha author says or at least infers that Galileo was a bible-believing christian and didn’t believe in evolution. This may say picky but 1. Galileo was dead by the time Darwin made his theory, and 2. Galileo was hated by the church in rome for having teachings that went against the bible. That’s why the church had one of his fingers cut off. Galileo 1564-1642 / Darwin 1809-1882.*
I have been working on this post for several hours now and truthfully I’m exhausted. If Noze wants me to continue disecting this article I will, but for now I will let him and any one else out there use this as a starting point for their ideological contemplation.
One thing I want to point out is that I don’t think someone who is religious is bad. Or that someone who believes that there is a higher power guiding us is bad. In fact I still believe that there is a higher power and that it probably has had a hand in some of our evolution. But thoese are personal beliefes that I can’t support with any type of imperical evidence. It would be selfish of me to say that my beliefe based on no quantitative evidence should be a required piece of information presented to a student at a local high school. Afterall what makes my beliefe any more valid than a scientologists, budhists, creationists, or supporter of intellegent design.
ride you kany