When Empiricism Fails In Evolution: Where Do They Turn?

Has anyone seen evolution take place? When I first started writing this blog, a gentlemen came in and responded to my statement that “macro-evolution” is not observable. Instead of agreeing with me on the obvious he rather tried a different approach and stated that “bacteria” trying to resist medication like an anti-biotic was a prime example of evolution in action.

Richard Dawkins who appeared in the movie “Expelled” and is considered to be one of the leading spoke persons on the subject of evolution, he said…

“Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.”

-The Genius of Charles Darwin, Series 1, (UK) Channel 4 TV: Sat 11 Oct 2008

Dawkins admits evolution is not observable. It’s too slow to be observable in his opinion. Now this is not empirical science but rather inference or analogy which creationists have been using for many years. I have covered a variety of topics that use this method.

Now evolutionists basically believe they can figure out the past by studying the present.  Stellar evolution theory is a recent example. It had claims sunlight on the early earth would have been 20-30% dimmer than it is today but geology shows the oceans were liquid in the earliest (Archean) rocks which verifies the Bible.

In order to supposedly solve this problem, they claimed carbonyl sulfide produced by volcanoes is the answer because of it’s ability to create a greenhouse gas effect which they believe would have been large enough that it would be able to save the earth from a weaker sun.

Why would carbonyl sulfide not be a problem today with warming the Earth? Well because free oxygen of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would destroy carbonyl sulfide.

So this is how they look for things in the present in order to try and explain the past even though there is no real direct evidence that was the case. I do believe this method in evolution is dying somewhat. Let me explain…

Specified complexity of DNA has really opened eyes. We know that DNA is the source of information needed for protein to understand then execute that information by performing construction which creates more DNA. Without DNA, those proteins cannot build more and without proteins, DNA cannot be built either. So evolutionists have taken to the notion, that DNA was much simpler with no precise parts needed to function rather than linking the present DNA with the past as seen previously in another field of science.

There is nothing wrong with inference or analogy but it certainly destroys the evolutionary argument on one hand, but verifies the Bible on the other. We observe information being created by intelligence. We have observed languages being created by intelligence. So when we observe DNA language, and microscopic machinery that resembles man-made machines but only far more advanced one can draw an inference for being designed by God.

When we see organic material like fossilized  trees standing upright through several meters of sedimentary rock layers we can assume the layers were laid down fairly quickly before the trees could rot, happened by a flood not millions of years. When we observe unfossilized animal tissue containing amino acid sequences  within fossils of dinosaur bones, we can assume those fossils to have been formed fairly recently (thousands of years ago, not millions) because of the chemical decomposition rates involved.

All of the logical conclusions based on the above analogies and inferences prove devastating to evolutionary presuppositions.

8 thoughts on “When Empiricism Fails In Evolution: Where Do They Turn?

  1. “Has anyone seen evolution take place?”

    Yes. Both in the wild and in lab conditions. As anyone who has done even the most basic research on the subject would know.

  2. Michael: “Dawkins admits evolution is not observable.”

    This is so blatantly, scurrilously dishonest that even the National Enquirer wouldn’t touch it.

    What did Dawkins say? ““Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period…” That is, we have no human eyewitnesses to evolution over a million years, because people haven’t been around for as million years. Duh. And then, this phrase was merely a qualifier to the rest of the sentence, a means to introduce the mountains of evidence for long-term evolution.

    This is desperation, pure and simple Do you really expect even the gullible faithful to believe this tripe?


    Well, maybe so. Well into the 20th century, creationists were still disputing heliocentricity as contrary to the Bible. A prominent spokesman, Wilbur Voliva, on Dec. 26, 1915:

    “I believe this earth is a stationary plane, that it rests upon water; and that there is o such thing as the earth’s axis or the earth’s orbit. It is a lot of silly rot, born in the egotistical brain of infidels…. Neither do I believe there is any such thing as a law of gravitation. I believe that is a lot of rot, too. There is no such thing! I get my astronomy from the Bible.”

    A few even held out past the Moon landing in 1969. Samuel Shenton wrote a complaint to the Guardian (UK) that the Apollo photos had not proven the Bible wrong. Christ himself had warned of “a great deception which might shake Christian faith.” He was particularly incensed that the astronauts had quoted Genesis: “The technological villainy has been worsened by the astronauts’ exploitation of the opening verses of Genesis as a deceptive cloak.”

    If you think creationists’ previous insistence on a flat earth is quaint and passe, you might wish to look at your evolution arguments 25 years from now.

  3. Tell me you can hardlywait for the September issue of Scientific American—the “origins issue.” Articles on origin of life, origin of mind, origin of the universe, and more.

    If you subscribe now, we’ll double your order at no extra cost. And we’ll pay the postage.

  4. I can’t believe it. you’re not all over the new peer-reviewed paper[1] purporting to prove that Darwinian evolution is impossible, by showing that A-B=C (Well, the math symbols are a little more complicated than that, but the result is the same.)

    And you should note proudly that William Dembski is now a Senior Member of the IEEE. This is important, because it requires paying significantly more than for just a plain Member, which can be bought much more cheaply.

    Well, but then the paper does have a lot of Mathematical Equations in it. They may take some time to typeset, so that the ignorant can be duly dazzled.

    [1] W. Dembski and J. Marks II. Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man. Cybernetics A 39:1051 (2009). Not having paid your IEEE dues, you might have to pay for a copy of the article. I get it for free.

  5. The obvious response to that would be it’s not surprising since said paper has been peer reviewed now and found to be rather silly.
    Which means the peer review process is still working nicely.

  6. Matt, if you read the paper, don’t be fooled by the use of “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” as a search example. Although the target string is the same, Marks & Dembski’s method of searching for it is very different from Richard Dawkins’ evolutionary search. Therefore, M&D’s paper is irrelevant to evolution.

    Mark Chu-Carroll (Good Math, Bad Math blog) has an interesting review of the paper. His conclusion: Eh, so what? But then all the Dishonesty Institute ever wanted was a peer-reviewed paper of some sort—doesn’t matter whether it’s even related to intelligent design.

  7. Michael, you must be asleep at the switch. A recent article on the mammalian appendix has some quotes that are just begging to be distorted by a half-competent creationist.[1] It even says that DARWIN WAS WRONG at one point.[2]

    Scurry on over to Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Randal Bollinger R, Parker W (2009) “Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix.” J Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 12.

    There are not many mainstream-journal opportunities for creationists, so you’d better grab what you can.

    [1] The highest kind.

    [2] It doesn’t present Darwin’s view correctly, so you can salivate over that one too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s