[aclug-L] Re: Linux and Creationism...

[Jonathan Hall <jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You need to realize that there are _two_ separate debates that most people
confuse as one.  a) The age of the universe (is it billions of years old, or
merely thousands) and b) the origin of the species.

The fact that most people don't distinguish these two debates is where most
of the confusion, name-calling, and finger-pointing comes in in the debate
between "evolutionists" and "creatonists."

The "evidence" you mention below points to the age of the universe, but says
absolutely nothing about genetic mutations leading to the evolution of new
species.

There are huge volumes of evidence to suggest that the universe is very
ancient--from the amounts of radiation observed in space, to the amount of
visible matter and it's location and velocity in relation to Earth, to the
fossil records, to the depth of the dust layer on the moon, etc, etc

This is where most (young earth) creatonists are made out to be fools.  They
claim that because God created the universe, that anything that Darwinists
believe (including the age of the universe) is incorrect.  So they go on
long rants explaining how the universe is really only 10,000 years old, and
trying to find (non-existant) faults in the way "secular" scientists measure
the age of the Universe.  Faults such as, "carbon-dating is not accurate"
(that's right... it's not accurate for more than 5,000 years or so.  We
don't need something accurate to the time-of-death to realize a fossil is
millions of years old).

This is also where evolutionists make their error--they assume that because
some/most (young-earth) creatonists dispute their ideas of the age of the
earth with "silly science" that it means anyone who believes in a creator is
scientifically inept.

Moving along, there is practically no solid evidence to suggest that one
species has ever evolved into another independant species.  The logic behind
the argument against darwinian evolution is very simple, and could be
explained to any grade school student.  In the book "Darwin's Black Box"
(the author's name I don't recall at the moment, but can find it if anyone
is interested), evolution is approached from a purely scientific (i.e.
non-religious) biological standpoint.  The complexity of even some of the
simplest biological beings is great enough that Darwin's theory falls apart
rather quickly.

Darwin's theory is based on the assumption that for an organism to evolve to
another, independant species, a series of small random mutations must take
place.  While many (perhaps even most) of the mutations will be harmful to
the creature, the creature(s) that get the most advantageous mutations will
prevail (survival of the fittest).  While this theory seems sound on the
surface, and can work for some things (societies, governments, businesses,
etc), it cannot possibly work on a biological scale.  Let me explain.

For Darwin's theory to stand the test of logic, every mutation between
Species A and Species B must yield a "workable" or "usable" body.  It is
easy to see this is not biologically possible if you take a known organ,
cell, or other biological entity, and try to 'step backwards' to a simpler,
yet functional, version.  The book mentioned above, "Darwin's Black Box"
takes the reader through several specific examples; a sheep's eye, the blood
clotting mechanism found in humans and other mammals, simple muscle tissue,
a stink bug, and perhaps others that I don't recall.

Using the example of an eye, there are other, simpler "seeing" instruments
found in animals.  Flatworms, for instance, can detect intensity and
direction of light, although they cannot make out color or clarity of images
as we can.  So from the surface, it would seem to make sense that perhaps
the flatworm's ability to detect intensity and direction of light could have
evolved, over millions of years, to something as complex as a sheep's eye,
oir the human eye.

The problem is in the fact that to get from a flatworm's eye to a sheep's
eye, you must add mechanisms that serve no useful puprose until the product
is "complete."  For instance, suppose a flatworm had a mutation to suddenly
have an eyelid.  (This is a silly and extreme example, but bear with me.)
What good would an eyelid do a flatworm?  None whatsoever.  The chances of a
flatworm with an eyelid surviving the battle of the fittest are no
greater--and possibly worse--than that of a flatworm without an eyelid.

When you take it to a more microscopic level, to say, blod clotting, it
perhaps becomes easier to reason (for those who are more scientifically
in-tune).  There are many things that must happen and in the proper order
for a blod clot to happen.  If something happens out of order, or doesn't
happen at all, the animal may bleed to death, or the entire blood mass of
the animal may clot.  Or any other number of things.  The blod clotting
mechanism found in humans is, "irreversably complex."  It is impossible to
simplify it without rendering the entire system useless.

For Darwin's theory to work, it must be possible incrimentally to simplify
blood clotting, and still retain _some_ functionality.  It must be possible
to incrimentally simplify a sheep's eye, and still see _something_.  It must
be possible to incrimentally simplify a muscle, and still retain some
mobility.  It must be possible to incrimentally simplify a stink bug's
defense mechanism, and still retain some level of defense.

All four of these mechanisms, as explained in gross detail in the book, are
_irreversably complex_.

Now, if a person can find for me some scientific evidence that it is
possible to go incrimentally from a flatworm's eye to a sheep's eye, within
Darwin's theory, then I'd be more than happy to listen.

But the fact of the matter is, Darwin proposed his theory at a time when
the sort knowledge of biology we have now was not available to disprove his
theory.  In fact, Darwin himself said (paraphrased) that if it were ever
possible to demonstrate that it is not possible to go from one distinct
species to another by way of incrimental changes, that his theory would not
hold.  He himself realized his theory was __just a theory__, and that, at
its time of conseption, it could not be proven nor disproven.  It now, by
his own standard, _can_ be disproven.

Why then are we, as a society and a world, so afraid to accept it as
disproven?  Probably because most Darwinists think the only alternative is
illogical "creatonism."  Whether you believe in a god or not, though, there
are many other theories of creation--both religious and secular.  Perhaps we
should all take a look at some of them, instead of this stupid
trench-warfare between the two most common theories--neither of which holds
any water.

-- Jonathan


On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:05:47PM -0500, Burt Humburg wrote:
> 
> >>Kelvin was also famous for one of the first serious scientific efforts to
> estimate the age of the earth. Only off by a factor of 45 (maybe a bit more
> if Jonathan's theories gain currency).
> 
> 
> Kelvin is a great example of a triumph of evolution. (Sorry J-dog.) Back
> then, they didn't know about fusion power. Measurements of radiation that
> was striking the Earth were used to calculate the amount of energy that the
> sun was emitting. The resulting amount required a massive amount of chemical
> energy being consumed. It fit in nicely with a several-thousand year old
> earth as opposed to the several-million year old earth that Darwin needed.
> 
> To put the point in slightly different fashion, evolution contradicted the
> science of the day.
> 
> In the fullness of time, at least this far, Darwin's theory has been
> validated time and time again: this is but one example. Thanks to this and
> other examples, don't let anyone ever tell you that evolution is a
> philosophy or a religion that has been exempted from the tests of science.
> It had its unsure days but its survival to this day is not a measure of
> pro-evolutionary bias; rather, it is a measure of the strength of the
> theory.
> 
> We seem to be drifting far afield of Linux, so I'll just briefly mention
> that penguins probably evolved as well.
> 
> BCH
> 
> 
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi

--
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
 Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (620) 367-2487
         http://www.futureks.net/  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
                  -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi