Have we talked about Creation.com yet?

[Maggie Mae]

creation.com/15-questions

From an article entitled "15 Questions for Evolutionists"

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

I can't even.

How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

Biodiversity of species?

How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful.

Well, if you realize that the world is older than 6,000 years old, this might make more sense.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Again, biodiversity. Hundreds of millions of years.

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past.

But you can do experiments on bacteria or insects or other organisms with a short life span!

[Kitty]

GOD DAMN IT I came up with replies to each of those questions, but I took too long to type it, I got logged out and my whole post was eaten :(

But yeah, I'm a political science major who's taken about three biology classes- two in high school and one in college. I didn't take biology twice in high school because I failed. I took 10th grade honors bio and AP bio in 12th grade. Evolution has been covered in all three of those classes. These 15 questions show not only a piss-poor understanding of evolution, but also chemistry, philosophy, religion, HOW COMPUTERS WORK (that analogy in Question 2 is so full of fail it's unbelievable), how DNA works, how science works, and the difference between "scientist" and "philosopher of science" (see Karl Popper quote in Question 15).

Also, there's an unbelievable amount of quote-mining. Philip Skell simply pointed out that sticking to Darwin's explanations for everything rather than testing his conclusions was hindering biologists, because Darwin's observations and conclusions were the earliest work on evolution and were thus not 'complete' compared to what scientists have found today. Karl Popper is not a scientist, he's a philosopher of science, and the brackets in the quote in Question 15 indicate that the word "religious" was not originally there, and of course these people are dumb enough to believe that "metaphysical" automatically means "religious." Also, a quick Google search on Michael Ruse shows that his article has been posted to many creationist websites- the original National Post article does not appear on the first page, and it certainly doesn't appear on any reputable science pages. And of course all the quotes from Gould, Crick, and Dawkins have been twisted around to make it sound like they're not supporting evolution.

[xReems]

OMFG STUPID CREATIONIST BELIEVERS.

It seriously irks me to the core when I hear people's defense on Creationism. I graduated with a degree in Biotechnology-took a class on evolutionary biology where we talked about Creationism. This is my rant but here's the gist on why scientists refuse to include "Creationism" as a theory.

Yes, a theory is not proven fact--then again, science, in general, is not a proven fact. Everything in the scientific world is a "theory" but there's years and years of research and evidence to back up those theories. Evolution is one of them--there's years upon years of research and evidence to show that such a theory exists. When these fundamentalists heard about this-they flipped. Why? Because it goes against the Bible that God created everything. So, these fundies came up with the "creationism theory" and wanted science classes to teach that. Supreme Court ruled against it because it violated separation of church and state. Because Creationism involved the Bible with no scientific evidence, SC did not agree with that. So, the fundies, after a while, came up with the "Intelligent Design Theory"--to simplify, it's the same crap as "Creationism" but they changed it to "Intelligent Design", thinking schools would include that in science classes. Once again, Supreme Court shot it down because it involved the Bible (though, they tried oh so hard to hide it).

If you want Creationism to be taught in class-fine, but teach it in a religion class or teach other religion's view on Creationism and not just the Christian view. Science and religion do not go together, whatsoever. Science is based on facts, religion is based on faith. Creationism has no scientific background because it involves your belief. Fundies claim that it says this this and that in the Bible but the Bible is not a concrete scientific evidence.

Trust me, I can go on and on about this topic. It irks me to the core like there's no tomorrow.

[crassy]

I can't even with people who spew the bullshit that is creationism. It is all just a bullshit junk science wank fest. As soon as someone uses the term 'evolutionist' I automatically dismiss everything they say (same with the term abortionist). If I happen to have the misfortune of having an online conversation with someone who uses that term, I just copy pasta this:

"Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandise for a doctrine, it's the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here, that I was surprised to find that I'd missed it out of the original list, but I had more pressing concerns to attend to when compiling the list originally. However, having been reminded of it, now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Why do I say this? Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever. For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word "evolutionist" is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a "doctrine", and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori "assumptions". This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of "symmetry" between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago. When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them "gravitationists"? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them "microbists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell's Equations make them "electromagnetists"? Does their acceptance of of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them "quantumists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them "stellarists"? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.

While we're at it, let's deal with the duplicitous side salad known as "Darwinist". The critical thinkers here know why this particular discoursive elision is erected, and the reason is related to the above. Basically, "Darwinist" is erected for the specific purpose of suggesting that the only reason people accept evolution is because they bow uncritically to Darwin as an authority figure. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, droolingly encephalitic drivel of a particularly suppurating order. Let's provide a much needed education once and for all here.

Darwin is regarded as historically important because he founded the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology, and in the process, converted biology from a cataloguing exercise into a proper empirical science. The reason Darwin is considered important is NOT because he is regarded uncritically as an "authority figure" - the critical thinkers leave this sort of starry-eyed gazing to followers of the likes of William Lane Craig. Darwin is regarded as important because he was the first person to pay serious attention to reality with respect to the biosphere, with respect to the business of determining mechanisms for its development, and the first to engage in diligent intellectual labour for the purpose of establishing that reality supported his postulates with respect to the biosphere. In other words, instead of sitting around accepting uncritically mythological blind assertion, he got off his arse, rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, put in the long hours performing the research and gathering the real world data, and then spending long hours determining what would falsify his ideas and determining in a rigorous manner that no such falsification existed. For those who are unaware of this, the requisite labour swallowed up twenty years of his life, which is par for the course for a scientist introducing a new paradigm to the world. THAT is why he is regarded as important, because he expended colossal amounts of labour ensuring that REALITY supported his ideas. That's the ONLY reason ANY scientist acquires a reputation for being a towering contributor to the field, because said scientist toils unceasingly for many years, in some cases whole decades, ensuring that his ideas are supported by reality in a methodologically rigorous fashion.

Additionally, just in case this idea hasn't crossed the mind of any creationist posting here, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin, and whilst his historical role is rightly recognised, the critical thinkers have also recognised that more recent developments have taken place that would leave Darwin's eyes out on stalks if he were around to see them. The contributors to the field after Darwin are numerous, and include individuals who contributed to the development of other branches of science making advances in evolutionary theory possible. Individuals such as Ronald Fisher, who developed the mathematical tools required to make sense of vast swathes of biological data (heard of analysis of variance? Fisher invented it), or Theodosius Dobzhansky, who combined theoretical imagination with empirical rigour, and who, amongst other developments, provided science with a documented instance of speciation in the laboratory. Other seminal contributors included Müller (who trashed Behe's nonsense six decades before Behe was born), E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Sewall Wright, Jerry Coyne, Carl Woese, Kenneth Miller, and they're just the ones I can list off the top of my head. Pick up any half-decent collection of scientific papers from the past 100 years, and dozens more names can be added to that list."

The people who are posing the questions on creation.com need to pick up The Greatest Show On Earth. All of the answers are right there. Or, you know, a grade 9 biology text book.

[emmiedahl]

I will take the bait and answer these in case any creationists are reading.

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

If you don't understand biology, then we do seem like walking miracles. Everything in its niche and a niche for everything! But the fact is that we are actually very poorly designed. Every creature has flaws that a perfect Creator probably would not have given them. For example, rabbits eat plant matter and, like herbivores, have a little pouch in their digestive system that breaks certain chemical bonds. Omnivores and carnivores do not have this pouch, which is why we generally need some animal products (derived at some point from an herbivore) in our diet. Most animals have this pouch at the beginning of their digestive tract, so that they can break down the molecules into useable components and then absorb them in the rest of the intestine. Rabbits have the pouch at the end, which means they need to eat their food, let it pass completely through their digestive system, then eat the poop and digest it once again. Every organism has several of these flaws. I apologize to the science nerds for the overly simplified language--I am trying to make this comprehensible to a fundie with little science background.

When you look at embryos of more complex animals, they are all pretty much the same. We develop as various nucleic acids are read and produce proteins in a highly understandable but long process I will not get into here. The end result is that we understand how we get all of these features despite its seeming complexity, and you can actually trace an organism's evolutionary history through its embryology. There are a million examples like this. I will suffice to say that while we can argue over the origin of the spirit, the origin of the body is not an enigma in any way.

How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

Even bacteria show certain protosexual reproductive habits. The reason is that diversity is the key to evolution. Bacteria that can undergo conjugation or other methods of transferring genetic information have a huge advantage. You can see this in bacteria that have the plasmid for antibiotic resistance. In an organism with a huge genome like a human, the diversity is crazy cool and crazy amazing. We are what we are *because* of our diversity. So sexual reproduction and other means of DNA exchange are quite advantageous. Because most of us live in an environment with other members of our species, the cost of sexual reproduction is low and the rewards high.

How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful.

The proteins control their own use for the most part, through feedback loops and interacting with other proteins, etc. There is no magical control, the system works well or you die. Over time, mutations that don't work well are selected against and ones that work well are selected for because of which organisms live long enough to reproduce. That last sentence is the basic premise of teh eebil Darwinism, and I challenge anyone to find something anti-Biblical in it.

Some mutations seem destructive but are beneficial in the area where they evolved. For example, being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia gives a person an advantage because it makes them less susceptible to malaria. This is the reason that sickle cell anemia is seen mainly in populations that originate in areas where malaria is common. What is bad in the US might be a statistical advantage somewhere else.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Because some of them evolved to fill another niche, and others were able to be successful in their niche. Okay, so picture a group of birds that eat tiny worms. The population explodes and so they fan out. But in the new area, the worms live deep inside a flower. The birds in the original area have no pressure to evolve, they stay the same and become a living fossil. The ones in the new area experience selective pressure for long skinny beaks. Over time, their beaks become longer and skinnier. Combined with selective pressure from other differences in the new ecosystem, they become very different animals over a span of millions of years.

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past.

Evolution is a theory, just like heliocentricity, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. A scientific theory must not only be pretty much proven, it must unite several other ideas into one awesome over-arching and streamlined idea. It is not the same as the colloquial use of the word. We can see evolution happen in populations, especially ones with short lifespans like E. coli. Scientists have indeed seen it happen and can even predict changes in a population's genome over time. It *is* operational science.

What ideas does evolution unite? ALL of biology. All of it. Everything from photosynthesis to bipedal walking have one thing in common: we know how it evolved and we have the DNA evidence and often fossils to prove it. It is pretty cut and dry. Either you believe in evolution, or you reject fact-based ideas in general.

[doggie]

It all comes down to people wanting to believe the world is 6 k years old so it is to them no matter what reality says. Just look at the denial in the duggers and the effort they go through to keep those beliefs intact

[Spider Burps]

I will take the bait and answer these in case any creationists are reading....

(awesomeness ensues and emmiedahl pwns creationists)

Have I told you lately that I <3 you?

[emmiedahl]

Have I told you lately that I <3 you?

Aw, thanks.

I really believe this is why conservatives want science out of the schools. If you know science, then you can see they are just ignorant.

[B5SnowDog]

I once got into a discussion with a guy who thought evolution was a crock because it supposedly violated the second law of thermodynamics. He was pretty smug about his argument until I and another poster showed how flawed his understanding was. It's like he thought, "I'll use their own science against them!!!" without really understanding what it meant.

[emmiedahl]

It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics unless you are looking only at the simplified version taught to children.

Here is more info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... scriptions

It basically deals with behavior in a closed system, one in which there is no heat or energy exchange. They say that because we are complicated, we cannot have evolved. But they fail to realize that we are not a closed system. We use immense amounts of energy. It is a 2nd grader's evaluation of a high school senior level theorem.

[charizbarb]

I think a lot of creationists are just afraid of having to challenge their own belief system because in my experience, they don't even understand their own faith fully. I am a Christian and there is absolutely nothing about evolution that makes it incompatible with my faith. My faith is developed enough to not need the universe to be created in 6 days, 6k years ago for me to believe in it. Creationists do or the whole house of cards collapses. It seems like a very immature kind of faith to me.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Yeah well, the evidence that CERN recently dug up about that troublesome Higg's Boson might screw that whole 2nd law of Thermo thing up.

Have we gotten to the part where it says science doesn't prove anything (That's just what Dad said! Amazing!) -Jesus camp

[emmiedahl]

Yeah well, the evidence that CERN recently dug up about that troublesome Higg's Boson might screw that whole 2nd law of Thermo thing up.

Have we gotten to the part where it says science doesn't prove anything (That's just what Dad said! Amazing!) -Jesus camp

Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Einstein established that with e=mc^2. Have I already mentioned the mass deficit in atomic nuclei? Seriously, I am getting a deja vu moment. So, the Higgs Boson is interesting but it does not really diverge from classical thermodynamics because it is dealing with subatomic behavior in a not-closed system, while classical thermodynamics deals mainly with measurable behavior in a closed system.

Nothing in science is ever a fact because we are always learning more and testing new ideas. <---that is what a wise instructor told us when explaining why theories are Very Important Ideas when talking about a scientific theory being different from a colloquial theory. Someone asked, if evolution is proven, then why call it a theory? The above was the answer. So if the Higgs Boson ends up blowing the laws of thermodynamics out of the water or creating special instances of the laws of thermodynamics, that is fine. We need to always test and always re-evaluate, always know that what we know is only fact in our own small perspectives that will be blown out of the water by the next great physics mind. I think this openness is really offensive to Christian fundamentalists. They want dogma, and they want to believe that the science community is just as dogmatic as they are. When the Higgs Boson became public, the scientists that it proved wrong stood up and clapped. Scientists are not against being proven wrong, but they do not suffer fools who want to prove them wrong without even studying why we think we are right. Also, I suspect that a new physicist will pull a Hawking and figure out a unifying principle that makes this fit more neatly into existing theory.

I could sit and discuss cool new science stuff all night and day because it is so awesome and mindblowing. I understand so little of physics that I am just amazed at the intellect on these people. To think that some close-minded creationist without even freshman level biology dares to question the likes of Stephen Hawking? They are not intellectually fit to lick the dust from his wheels.

tl;dr The fundies have no idea what real science is like. Where they are, scientists have been there and come back already. And they did not buy the t-shirt. These are smart people and they are not dogmatic about anything but finding the truth.

[SamuraiKatz]

Emmiedahl...I wish this board had a thumbs up! Thanks for taking on the creationists.

[B5SnowDog]

It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics unless you are looking only at the simplified version taught to children.

Here is more info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... scriptions

It basically deals with behavior in a closed system, one in which there is no heat or energy exchange. They say that because we are complicated, we cannot have evolved. But they fail to realize that we are not a closed system. We use immense amounts of energy. It is a 2nd grader's evaluation of a high school senior level theorem.

Yeah, that's pretty much what we told him. You could almost hear the gears grinding as he tried to process it.

[flojo]

A friend sent this to me a couple of years back, when I finally told them I had stopped believing in Creationism (Sadly, I was that student who blindly believed all through my high school and college days in Creationism. Ironically, I did extremely well in science, simply parroting any aspects of evolution for tests, whilst smugly believing that I knew better. Extremely embarassed about that now).

Mr Flojo-to-be and I sat down over it (He's a geologist, and has always believed in science). In the end, I couldn't even be bothered replying. Some of the questions were so easy that I, a fresh, wet behind the ears non-creationist could answer with a "well, Duh - it's because ~!"

[bananacat]

If anyone uses that second law of thermo nonsense, I suggest pointing out that big bright energy source in the sky.

Also, evolution by natural selection is theory and fact. "Theory" has a different meaning in the scientific context.

[Terrie]

Can I be a gravitationist? 'Cause no one really understands why gravity exists -- just that it does -- so clearly it's a matter of faith.

As for complex organisms looking identical in early stages of development, my SiL just sent family a picture of her first sonogram and I found myself thinking "It looks like a chicken."

[emmiedahl]

Can I be a gravitationist? 'Cause no one really understands why gravity exists -- just that it does -- so clearly it's a matter of faith.

As for complex organisms looking identical in early stages of development, my SiL just sent family a picture of her first sonogram and I found myself thinking "It looks like a chicken."

Gravity is such an awesome thing to just think about. A Christian Brother told my son about it when he was 12 and he was determined to figure it out for years. Christian Brothers *do* believe in evolution; the brother was having a science discussion and told my son that is how to win his first Nobel Prize. We know that it does happen, we know how to calculate it, but we really don't really understand why.

It does not mean faith is the answer. We have had lots of things we could not explain, and then we could. I personally like Einstein's theory that there is a mesh and mass creates an indentation in the mesh that makes things roll toward it. Like this but in 3 dimensions:

I love talking science. I wish some fundies would come and argue with us. But they won't. :( And it would not live up to my expectations if they did. Conversations with creationists never do.

[Terrie]

I do realize that the answer to gravity is not "faith." I was just being silly. While science is not my field, I know enough to know that if we don't have an answer, it doesn't mean there isn't one. It simply means that we haven't found it yet. Which is why science is awesome. We keep moving forward.